Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Martirez

: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 no consensus. Even split numerically, with policy discussion on each side. I don't see where one trumps the other, and while this is a BLP, it does not appear to to be unduly negative or unbalanced. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Jean Martirez]]=

:{{la|Jean Martirez}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Martirez}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Jean Martirez}})

Hey all. This article was deleted recently from an expired PROD that I had placed on the article. It was recreated shortly thereafter. I'm not sure that this biography of a living person meets our notability guidelines (see also WP:BIO). The sources used on to cite this current article probably don't meet our policies on reliable, third party sourcing. I therefore think this article should be deleted. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Could you please tell me how this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The Google hits don't show prima facie evidence of being "notable" (in Wikipedia's terms). Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Wow, if you can't distinguish a news anchor in a major television market with ghits, you probably should not be nominating articles for deletion. And, that is not a personal attack. --Morenooso (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Please see Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. By the numbers, this subject gets:

:::* Significant coverage that is independent from WP:V and WP:RS sources.

:::* Reliable sources which again fall under WP:V.

:::* Sources gets secondary coverage. --Morenooso (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::*Great! Let's see some. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Here is just one [http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2008/04/25/video-cutting-the-grocery-bill IndepentCoverage]. While this is a blog, Links normally to be avoided allow them in WP:BIO when they come from a recognized expert. U.S. News & World Report providing coverage of a money saving consumer segment with a video recap is very notable. --Morenooso (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:Here's the slam dunk - [http://www.emmys.org/2009/58th-annual-los-angeles-area-emmy-awards-nominations Emmy nominated] --Morenooso (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::Subject talkpage, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJean_Martirez&action=historysubmit&diff=354270016&oldid=354262620 thisDIFF] now lists 12 URLs in which this Emmy nominated producer, host and reporter are given significant indepent coverage. --Morenooso (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::You seem to have taken this AFD as some attack by me against Jean Martirez or yourself. While this is not the case, your edit summaries and somewhat hostile phrasing suggest this to me. In any case, you seem to have found a lot of materials. I haven't had time to look through them all, but the US News one isn't long enough to really source anything from, other than that the person really exists. I will have to look at the others when I get some free time. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I have already state this is not WP:NPA above. As per WP:SNOW, when faced with obvious information that shows what the outcome will be, most editors will elect to go in that direction. If anything, this has become WP:OWN for you about wanting to keep this deletion alive. And yes, this person exists. --Morenooso (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not really. I just haven't checked the other sources yet, so it isn't very obvious (especially since the blog link, as I mentioned last night, doesn't have much content in it). So it is not quite obvious. And the "own" link is sort of random. Have you read that page yet? Perhaps some further useful reading material for you might be Wikipedia:Indentation. Long discussions are harder to read when the indentation is sporadic. I've fixed this page's indentation. Killiondude (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

:*Nominated twice and winning neither time fails that part you quoted. Twice isn't several. Killiondude (talk)

::*Not everyone who is nominated for a notable award wins that award. Such nominations however do represent being recognized by one's peers for one's contributions, winner or not. Her Emmy Award winning syndicated children’s newsmagazine “News for Kids" recieved both nomination and win. That, coupled with her two more recent nominations show me that she has repeated recogntion by her industry, and is thus worthy of note. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've gone through all the sources that Morenooso found and posted to the talk page. I've commented line by line on each of them, explaining why they are not useful to meeting WP:RS and WP:N. Some of them probably fail WP:SOURCES as well. Please review my comments found in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean_Martirez&diff=354476831&oldid=354272758 this] diff. With regard to the Emmys, (as I stated directly above) WP:ANYBIO says if they win one or are nominated several times then they qualify as being "notable" for Wikipedia. Jean has been nominated twice and won neither time. I don't think that meets the requirements. I'm even more positive now that if that's all the sourcing that we can find on this subject, then Jean probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - on the article talkpage, several times the nominator mentioned that she has been emmy nominated several times. Please see WP:ANYBIO which states: 1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times (my emphasis). Basically, the nominator has concurred with MichaelQSchmidt's Keep vote reasoning. --Morenooso (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:*False. I've said many times now that she hasn't been nominated several times. I'm not sure you follow things well. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJean_Martirez&action=historysubmit&diff=354482642&oldid=354482312 diff]. Nominator stated, "I've said in at least three (3) places that she was nominated twice." --Morenooso (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Please see this: Nominator states that he is unwatching this page and the article and walking away. Nominator believes this article is not notable and the sources found by Morenooso are unreliable and fail to show anything of real value for Wikipedia's purposes, but the competence levels surrounding Morenooso are disturbing. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::::If the sources are unreliable, why walk away and why call my competence level disturbing. I take that as a personal attack. --Morenooso (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:Since the nominator has stated it is unwatching the page, this nomination should be closed. --Morenooso (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Only if the nominator actually *withdraw* a nomination should it be closed. I have some disagreement with both sides about that "twice" and "several" thing, but apart from that, I failed to find any real RS. Incidentally, if "If anything, this has become WP:OWN for you about wanting to keep this deletion alive." is not personal attack I don't know what is. Please stop. Blodance the Seeker 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please see third opinion ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJean_Martirez&action=historysubmit&diff=354499507&oldid=354482738 thisDIFF]] offered by Thepm concerning notability. --Morenooso (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

: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.