Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María del Luján Telpuk (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

María del Luján Telpuk

This article does not meet the notability criteria. Camilorojas (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the notability criteria. Sources are not reliable and are not independent of the subject: " it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)."

according to wikipedia: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities [are notable when]: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. [for] Pornographic actors: Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, or has received nominations in multiple years.[10] Is a Playboy Playmate. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. also, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics".

Also, the article is an orphan. It could also be merged with Maletinazo. --Camilorojas (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reasoning in the previous AfD. Edward321 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the reasoning in the previous AfD wasn't very reasonable. It was said that "Maletinazo, which has not even been updated for events for the last six months. Thus, if one should be deleted it should be the other since this one has much of the current detail." This it totally crazy. Just because one article is more updated it's more relevant?

WP:ONEEVENT DOES apply, since the modelling wasn't urelated to the scandal. Mainly, those were articles about the scandal, with pictures of her.--Camilorojas (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject of an international scandal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeating that she is a "notable subject of an international scandal" doesn't make it true. Just because you saw some adult magazines with pictures of this girl doesn't make her relevant. She was in a few magazines and that's it. The majority of the references are about the scandal, and most of these don't even have her name on them.--Camilorojas (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is a second delete "vote" by the same editor as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Again, this is not a poll, you have to make convincing arguments to why we should keep this article. Just saying it is important is not a valid argument. The intention of deletion talk pages is to have a substantial discussion about the article.--Camilorojas (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. But one person is not suppose to try to make it seem like he has consensus by adding delete everywhere. Would you kindly unbold your second delete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Notability guidelines as the coverage moved from the original incident. Substantial coverage, much of it focused entirely upon her beyond the case. Note Camilorojas: You don't get to "!vote" multiple times. If you'd like to disagree with someone's argument, "Comment" is the appropriate heading, and try to indent with two asterisks or two colons prior to your comment. T L Miles (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia policy clearly states that this is not a vote, I was merely making a point, not trying to make my arguments "weigh" more. I didn't, however, respond in an orderly fashion, and for that I apologize. Regarding your argument: please, read the references. It seems as if nobody is actually reading them. If you had, you could have never said that the coverage moved from the original incident.--Camilorojas (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at first blush this did feel like a BLP1E as the article is written a bit wonky - that's a clean-up issue. Plucked from obscurity this BLP is about a D-lister who has certainly be featured in multiple interviews and plenty of media coverage including television appearances. If it were just one model shoot then perhaps, but that is not the case here. A preponderance of sourcing supports its inclusiion. The rest remains regular editing concerns. -- Banjeboi 02:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.