Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luisa Acuna

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 an apparent redirect to José Nepomuceno. I'll leave the history visible to allow for the merging of additional content or the recreation of the article once suitable sources are gathered. --jonny-m t 04:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Acuna[edit]

I've been wavering on this one for a while... that "She was a famous leading lady in Filipino silent films" would be enough to keep. I have not, however, been able to locate any evidence that she meets this claim per WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on her. Recently, it was tagged for speedy deletion, which was [1], which I more or less agree with, since there is at least a claim to fame. I went to PROD it, and I noticed in the deletion log that it has been deleted three times - twice on a speedy, once on a PROD - so it is no longer eligible to be prodded again. So I have brought it to AfD to get a final say on whether this article should stay or go. Obviously I do believe at the moment that it should be deleted for the reasons above (I'm not just frivolously nominating something to see how the community would react), but I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier (I only have access to the Internet and American library systems). As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources Cheers, CP 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's this, on p.64, shows she starred in Un (El) Capullo Marchito (A Wilted Rosebud) (1920), (consistent with Tagalog article except for date) referring to Manila Nueva, 17 April, 1920. I added this to the article. Surely there are more RS's on her in ancient newspaper archives. John Z (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind that sources relating to the Philippines are notoriously difficult to find online; just because you can't Google it means that it doesn't exist, or it isn't notable enough. (This has caused many a great problem for some Filipino Wikipedians.) Even the Philippine newspapers don't know how to properly archive their own website's online articles >:( The best places to go would be the National Library and the National Archives of the Philippines, museums such as the Lopez Museum and Filipiniana Heritage Library (which has good collections of old, old Filipiniana such as newspaper clips...maybe I can check this out if and when I'm free) and probably the big libraries of major universities such as UP Diliman, University of Santo Tomas and Ateneo de Manila University. Thanks --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I am aware of that, hence my comment that "I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier". Proof of notability, however, rests on the individual who adds the material, not theoretical sources – if we kept every article that could have sources, we'd never delete anything, no matter how non-notable. Cheers, CP 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to José Nepomuceno as he's the one who made her famous in the first place. I think that's the best compromise the I could think of. I already merge some text to the main article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response A bit strange, but I wouldn't object to that. Cheers, CP 06:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor would I.John Z (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (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.