Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Tenorio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. There was considerable discussion concerning whether the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN, but taken as a whole, the discussion seems to support inclusion at least under the WP:GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mercedes Tenorio[edit]
- Mercedes Tenorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Not finding the notability for this one. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep given that the subject is running for vice president of Nicuragua, I would assume notability. RadManCF (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep. Moving to keep now as being satisfied from the discussion below that there is significant coverage of the subject. My earlier comment was: As she only polled 0.27%, her candidacy does not exactly get her to WP:POLITICIAN. Running for Vice President does not create an assumption or presumption of notability. There appears to be some coverage that could be relevant to WP:GNG so I'll wait until someone who can speak Spanish can tell us what's in them. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's a candidate for vice-president of a country. Talk about systemic bias - sheesh! Rebecca (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria for inclusion do you suppose that this person meets? JBsupreme (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicians. #3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Mkativerata's links show more than enough articles on Google News alone to clearly show this. Rebecca (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another "look at the search results" answer. Have you even looked at them? All of them from a few months in 2006, when her party got a tiny proportion of the vote. There's only one (I think) that says anything more than "She is running for vice president", and that appears to just be an interview. There is no 'critical analysis', no biographical details, nothing else about her political career. That does not constitute significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see at least four which appear at a glance to go into further depth about the subject, including one which looks to contain some useful further biographical details - amidst a good twenty in total. You don't get to discount sources about a candidate in a Spanish-speaking country because you can't speak Spanish. That should be good enough; for further proof there's an interesting interview with her here Rebecca (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through every one of the 17 linked. I've used google translate which whilst not being totally accurate, at least gives a rough idea. This and [1] are the only useful ones I can find. I'd be interested to see what the other 2 you think go into more depth say. For someone running for vice president I think that is very low coverage, and well in the realm of WP:BIO1E to boot. Quantpole (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)[reply]
- Well, apart from the part where she's also a trade union leader. If she was in the United States we wouldn't be having this conversation. Moreover, have you actually read the two articles you just cited? More than enough there to create a good little article. Rebecca (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we would. And I would be just as likely to advise deletion on an australian politician of dubious notability too. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see you trying to delete Chuck Baldwin, who polled a similar amount of the vote to Tenorio. She's a vice-presidential candidate; she's a trade union leader; we have enough sources for a good article on her - she clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN, and this nomination should be withdrawn.Rebecca (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we would. And I would be just as likely to advise deletion on an australian politician of dubious notability too. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, apart from the part where she's also a trade union leader. If she was in the United States we wouldn't be having this conversation. Moreover, have you actually read the two articles you just cited? More than enough there to create a good little article. Rebecca (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through every one of the 17 linked. I've used google translate which whilst not being totally accurate, at least gives a rough idea. This and [1] are the only useful ones I can find. I'd be interested to see what the other 2 you think go into more depth say. For someone running for vice president I think that is very low coverage, and well in the realm of WP:BIO1E to boot. Quantpole (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)[reply]
- I see at least four which appear at a glance to go into further depth about the subject, including one which looks to contain some useful further biographical details - amidst a good twenty in total. You don't get to discount sources about a candidate in a Spanish-speaking country because you can't speak Spanish. That should be good enough; for further proof there's an interesting interview with her here Rebecca (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another "look at the search results" answer. Have you even looked at them? All of them from a few months in 2006, when her party got a tiny proportion of the vote. There's only one (I think) that says anything more than "She is running for vice president", and that appears to just be an interview. There is no 'critical analysis', no biographical details, nothing else about her political career. That does not constitute significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicians. #3. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Mkativerata's links show more than enough articles on Google News alone to clearly show this. Rebecca (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria for inclusion do you suppose that this person meets? JBsupreme (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per my reasoning above. Quantpole (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (after e/c) - vice presidential candidacy isn't really enough on its own, but there's a bit more: she's a trade union leader, not just an activist, and is this her? It sounds likely. This article, in Spanish, provides lots of information to flesh out the article, but nothing which sounds particularly notable - I'm neutral as to whether, all together, this is quite enough to merit an article. Warofdreams talk 15:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material presented by the various editors above is enough to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources such as this article provided by Warofdreams (talk · contribs) prove that the subject passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2010 (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.