Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Maria Archila

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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Notability has not been challenged here by anybody, and arguing to delete on the basis of a speedy deletion criterion when the page would never be speedy deleted under the same criterion is not going to get us anywhere. I think this nomination was made in good faith, but honestly, unless there's something shown to be significantly wrong with these pages besides the creator's block evasion, I doubt the community will support mass deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria Archila[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy. G5 - created by a blocked sock of Cirt who was previously topic-banned from editing articles that are largely focused on political biographical information, and the subject of this article is heavily involved in politics wumbolo ^^^ 15:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've not checked the page's notability, but I disagree with the rationale that the nominator puts forward as Gandydancer makes a substantial contribution in this edit. (Disclosure: Sagecandor has contacted me via email about this issue, but I would !vote delete if I thought it was the right outcome.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: G5 was premature as the article was brand new and obviously any newly created article is going to be disproportionately edited by its creator until it's had time to season for a bit. And that's happening now, as other editors are expanding and copyediting it. She's also been notable prior to the Flake incident and the article should be kept, blocked creator aspect aside. JesseRafe (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseRafe: please comment only on the validity of the G5. See from WP:CSD, When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions: [...] G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well-sourced article on which more than one editor worked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nearly all of non-Sagecandor additions were overwhelmingly changed since. There is barely any trace of them left, as Sagecandor did major improvements to prose after the other editor edited the article. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wumbolo - I quickly became aware that the current information for this bio would involve a considerable amount of time to read current articles, do the wikilinking, and such so I added a few sentences as a beginning but noted that it needed improvement, which I planned to do if others had not already done it. I agree with the changes that were done to my edit even though it involved deleting it in entirety, but not the way it was done. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm willing to bet that it would be hard to find a woman in America that does not know of the woman in this bio. I'm surprised to find that anyone would suggest that it be deleted. I'm thankful that someone took the time to write it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I think Gandydancer is overstating the subject's recognizability, this is a well-sourced article. Regardless of the creator's history, removing this content would be a net-negative for readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (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.