Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frida Torresblanco

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. as, except for the nominator, all editors advocating for Deletion have one edit to their accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Torresblanco[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)

Pursuant to Ms Torresblanco coming on help chat re: some allegations that were dismissed with prejudice 15 years back, I've combed through the article (a BLP) and its history, and I don't think she met notability criteria in the first place. Although she's been involved with multiple projects of definite notability, she herself hasn't been the topic of all that much independent coverage. There's a lot that's not independent, and there's a lot that's surface-level mentions of her name, but... these are the best sources I could find: https://web.archive.org/web/20141024135806/http://voxxi.com/2012/02/21/frida-torresblanco-latina-mother-and-hollywood-success-quebulla-voxpopuli/

https://remezcla.com/film/frida-torresblanco-producers-master-class-nalip-media-summit/

https://variety.com/2010/film/markets-festivals/torresblanco-launches-braven-films-1118023649/

Apparently The Hollywood Reporter ranked her as "the 34th Most Powerful Latino in Hollywood, and 13th on the magazine’s list of Latino Women Power 25" at one point, which feels a little... hyperspecific.

Any one of those would be enough to make me think "Hmm... maybe she should be the topic of an article?"

And then after I spent a while searching, and that was all I found, I would decide otherwise.

Thoughts? DS (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's been involved with Pan's Labyrinth and other notable projects. This [[1]] talks about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Torresblanco is s not the projects and they are not her. What does that Variety piece say about her:
- Braven is a company run by her and her partners
- her "resumé is packed with big-name talent and titles"
- she had a recent production that was nominated for a couple of awards
- her "slate involves projects with international superstars"
- an executive at Viacom - a company with which Braven was joining forces - called her 'creative'
- she has an impressive-sounding goal.
And that's it. Notability is not a halo. DS (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Spain, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems WP:BASIC is likely met here based on the sources presented. It would be nice to have a source that establishes some biographical details, but it's not strictly required for BASIC. Regarding the above discussion. A subject's resume does not contribute to notability (outside of SNGs that don't apply to movie producers). However, Variety in it's capacity as an independent reliable secondary source, writing about the subject's resume does contribute to notability. The Lang article has a bit of SIGCOV, and it contributes to WP:BASIC. I think the combination of sources we have suffice for WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 20:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see one reliable secondary source mentioned here. And she apparently has film credits as 'producer' for multiple WP:notable works, including some award-winning ones. So I think WP:NBIO#Creative professionals is satisfied (note that WP:PRODUCER points there). To wit:
1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film...)
2. The person's work (or works) has...(c) won significant critical attention
Although "notability is not inherited", the main thing that makes a creative professional notable is the size and especially value of their creative output. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Variety posts around 25 times a day and they've only written one or two articles about her in the past 15 years and they're about her work, not her personally. She is very clearly not a public person. She doesn’t have Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, or any of the major social media sites. To my knowledge she only has a LinkedIn and IMDB page, which is probably for business use and not personal. Since she is not famous, I don’t think she meets the criteria. It's not like she is Jennifer Lopez, so let’s let her have her peace of mind and give her the opportunity to stay off the internet (if she so chooses). DulanDeckay (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DulanDeckay has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few more references for upcoming series. I realise not all projects are eventually released. I will keep looking to see if I can find more references for her. Knitsey (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she has been involved with many notable projects, she is not a famous person herself. The projects are, she isn’t. If she wants her account to be deleted because people are bringing up allegations from 15 years ago, then I think that’s totally fair. If I was someone who had a bit of notoriety, I would probably try my best to remain out of the spotlight to avoid my name being drawn through the mud by random people online. So, if that’s what she was trying to do and random people are messing with her anyways, then I think this is all pretty understandable and shouldn’t require much debate of whether or not she has the right to have her page deleted. WebstersParadise (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebstersParadise has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you are considered famous, then your name is your brand. This woman seems to be making money not off of her name, but off of work behind the scenes. If her name has appeared in a couple of variety articles, the articles would have to be about her and her accomplishments, not about a business or project that she happens to be involved with. Due to the fact that none of these articles are centered around her and her name, no truly reliable secondary source supports the fact that she could be considered famous, herself. Vrumteam67 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vrumteam67 has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (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.