- 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Manuel Saval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor. Does not meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. He has an IMDB entry, but a lot on non-notable actors and actresses do. Google search comes up with his wikipedia page, facebook page, and other pages that are mostly self-promotional. The references listed on his wikipedia pages all link to articles written in Spanish, which is not too helpful on English wkipedia. MisterRichValentine (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Is English Wikipedia only for people famous in the English-speaking world? Saval has a substantial entry in Spanish Wikipedia and had leading roles in numerous television programs on Spanish language tv as noted in the entry. He was certainly not a minor figure as the articles cited make clear. Sorry you can't read Spanish. Also, Facebook pages for celebrities seem copied exactly from Wikipedia entries. Since the first entry in the edit history is dated after his death, I am pretty sure it is not "self-promotional" Trudyjh (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not saying that English Wikipedia is only for people who are famous in the English-speaking world, I'm saying that the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English. If this person had leading roles in numerous notable television programs, then can you help source some references in English so that readers of English Wikipedia can use them? I couldn't find any.
- I fail to see the point you're trying to make with your comment about the source of information for facebook entries, so I can't really reply.
- I did not say that the Wikipedia page is "self-promotional," I said that the webpages that come up via a google search are promotional, maybe not always 'self' promotional as many are advertisements for shows, movies, etc., but they are advertising nonetheless. They are not reliable, secondary sources that establish any type of notability for this person. I'm not saying that this person isn't notable, and I'm not some sort of bigot that believes if a person is popular in the Spanish-speaking community then they should have no place on English Wikipedia. I'm saying that this article does not establish notability and I could not find any reliable secondary sources that do. If this person is truly notable, then certainly there would be at least one or two external articles written in English about him that we can use as a reference on English Wikipedia.
- Your attitude in this matter makes absolutely no sense. Would English Wikipedia be a useful project if we all wrote in any language we pleased, and when people did not understand the community response was "well sorry that you don't speak language x, we're keeping it how it is!" No. That's why there are different versions of Wikipedia for different languages. If this person is notable then please source some references on him that are written in the language of this encyclopedia. MisterRichValentine (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment that "the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English" is contradictory to Wikipedia policy, see WP:NONENG for details. English sources are preferred for obvious reasons, but there is nothing wrong with foreign-language sources, which can be used to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets WP:NACTOR as seen here [1]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an article about how he had a rare medical condition, not about what a famous actor he was, and it is located in what seems to the the 'Health' section of that newspaper. If a newspaper article read "John Smith, a cashier at Walmart, was the first person to be diagnosed with the H1N1 flu virus," what would you take away from that article? Would you think that he was put in the article because he was a famous Walmart cashier, or because he had a rare medical condition? The mere mention of this man's occupation as an actor within this article about a rare infection does not mean that he is a notable actor.MisterRichValentine (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that his medical issues are irrelevant; sorry if I wasn't clear, but the last paragraph of the article lists notable productions he has had roles in, which seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an article about how he had a rare medical condition, not about what a famous actor he was, and it is located in what seems to the the 'Health' section of that newspaper. If a newspaper article read "John Smith, a cashier at Walmart, was the first person to be diagnosed with the H1N1 flu virus," what would you take away from that article? Would you think that he was put in the article because he was a famous Walmart cashier, or because he had a rare medical condition? The mere mention of this man's occupation as an actor within this article about a rare infection does not mean that he is a notable actor.MisterRichValentine (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(see below) - Thanks Mark for clearing that up. However, I'm not convinced that a two-line paragraph about his work is enough to establish notability. The article is clearly about his illness (as you have said); the last paragraph seems to be there just to provide some contextual information. There is no evidence that he has had a notable role in any of those programmes (nor that they are notable). Besides that one article, I can find nothing about him in reliable sources at all, apart from a few mentions in health related article - it seems that his main claim to fame was his illness. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment This is really mindboggling. If you google Manuel Saval, you find six pages (I stopped looking after that) of articles about him. If you look at Wikipedia's entries for various of the things in which he appears you will find him in leading or supporting roles. See Simplemente Maria, for example. I mentioned Facebook because MisterRichValentine cited it and wikipedia as "self-promoting," when they are identical articles. Really, you can't delete articles about notable people just because they are from a different culture and you are personally not familiar with them and/or unable to read the language of that culture. Use babelfish if you must. Manuel Saval is the equivalent of someone like Johnny Depp, and his mother, whose article you are also trying to delete is the equivalent of soeone like Barbara Stanwick, if Stanwick had been able to sing as well as act. Trudyjh (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trudyjh, no-one is suggesting that Saval's article should be deleted because he is from a different culture. Our guidelines on notability say that someone has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the sources that have been provided (nor any of the sources that appear when I put his name in to Google, as you suggest) are promotional. A source does not need to be promotional to be unreliable; many sources, such as Facebook and IMDB, are unreliable because they could come from anywhere. Unless the source comes from an authority on the subject, it is not deemed notable. That is the reason the article has been nominated for deletion, nothing to do with culture. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At no time did I say that Wikipedia and Facebook are self-promotional. I said a "Google search comes up with his wikipedia page, facebook page, and other pages that are mostly self-promotional." Give that a re-read and pay close attention to the placement of the commas. I already addressed the fact that I may have been in error calling it 'self' promotion. However, most of the Google hits are some sort of promotion - "Buy this DVD at CD Universe, one of the actors on the DVD is Manuel Saval!"
- I'm going to ignore the nonsense that you wrote about the nomination being spurred by the subjects cultural background or race, even though I find that accusation very offensive. I would recommend that if you really think this page should be kept, you should be putting more effort into finding reliable secondary sources on the subject and less time trying to discredit your fellow editors with ridiculous slander. MisterRichValentine (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, exceptionally bad nom, the subject clearly passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG with a lot of significant reliable source about him [2]. The argument that the sources are not in English is a SNOW argument and goes against our policies. Cavarrone (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input, let's break that down line by line:
- "exceptionally bad nom," Thanks for sharing your opinion, that doesn't really help anybody decide if this should be deleted though
- "the subject clearly passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG with a lot of significant reliable source about him [3]." That is a link to a Google News search, NOT evidence of notability. If you search my name in the Google News archives 2,318 results come up, and believe it or not I am not notable. If you took some time to actually look at any of the links that come up, you'll notice that they are about his rare illness, as discussed above. They are not about what a famous actor he is. Please read more carefully in the future before posting.
- "The argument that the sources are not in English is a SNOW argument and goes against our policies." That has already been addressed above. Again, please read the conversation more carefully before posting. MisterRichValentine (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also note obituary from PeopleInEspanol (The Spanish language version of People magazine): http://www.peopleenespanol.com/article/muere-el-actor-manuel-saval As to the claim that the sources are self-promotional or promotional, here is what google turns up for manuel saval on the first few pages: wikipedia entry, obituary from Mexican news, something that appears to be a copy of wikipedia, imdb, imdb, biography, obituary from network54, obituary from latingossp, facebook copy of wikipedia entry, bogus search result from times of india, hispanic news site on saval's return to work after cancer treatment, some celebrity site, cduniverse offering cds of his programs, wiki answers on his death, someone else of similar name, nextag saval cds, find a grave, wiki answers on saval's age. facebook again, imdb, tv and novelas magazine (this is a major Spanish language magazine) web site two years after saval's death, his widow has new romance, ask.com, wikipedia yet again, esmas (website of Televisa, the largest Mexican tv network) website on his funeral, whodatedwho, msn.com death report, etc etc. I hope the people who feel this should be kept will also look at the attempt by the same user to delete Manolita Saval, his renowned actress-singer mother. Trudyjh (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I hope the people who feel this should be kept will also look at the attempt by the same user to delete Manolita Saval, his renowned actress-singer mother." Easy there, Trudy. That's irrelevant to this discussion. I hope people who feel this should be kept will also look at the talk page for trudyjh, where Jimmy Wales himself points out that trudy has "a pattern of sloppy work that [he] thinks isn't good enough for Wikipedia." MisterRichValentine (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ad hominem arguments are always so persuasive. Trudyjh (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They will find that in July of 2010, Jimmy pointed out a then-pattern of sloppy edits and asked the edtor try to be more careful. The founder's polite caution from 19 months ago. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I hope the people who feel this should be kept will also look at the attempt by the same user to delete Manolita Saval, his renowned actress-singer mother." Easy there, Trudy. That's irrelevant to this discussion. I hope people who feel this should be kept will also look at the talk page for trudyjh, where Jimmy Wales himself points out that trudy has "a pattern of sloppy work that [he] thinks isn't good enough for Wikipedia." MisterRichValentine (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article as nominated did suffer from addressable format and style problems,[4] but when nominated it included citations to five reliable sources. With respects to him, the nominator may not have been as thourough as I in his google searches if he felt that Spanish-language sources were somehow inappropriate, and thus ignored them thinking them unsuitable. However, I believe he now understands that Spanish-language sources are perfectly acceptable for a notable Mexican actor when no equivalent coverage is found in English. So, that part of his nomination statement was unfortunately in error and can be disregarded. The length of Manuel Saval's verifiable career and the number of notable productions in which he starred or guest starred has him meet WP:ENT. Knowing Spanish was fine, I was easily able to use the coverage of this individual as found in multiple reliable sources[5][6][7] to improve the article. And toward the coverage surrounding this actor's retirement and death... it is important to note that Spanish-language media made the editrorial decision to for three years cover this man's battle with cancer... and this level of coverage was not the same level one might expect for some random bus driver or sewer worker. They had a popular actor who was fighting cancer. The editorial decision was made to cover someone notable to them.... and shows the Spanish-language media's choice to provide persistant and ongoing coverage of someone they deemed notable to Mexico. Toward retention, we have a meeting of WP:GNG and verification of his career. Article is now far better than when this AFD forced cleanup,[8] and as notable to Mexico through coverage found in non-English sources is fine with en.Wikipedia, I would ask the nom to consider withdrawing his nomination. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure at the moment. None of the sources seem to go into much detail about his acting career (though, as I don't feel Spanish, correct me if I am wrong). WP:ENT requires significant roles in notable televisions programmes or films. Because I am not familiar with the actor of with Mexican television, I simply do not know whether his roles were significant or whether the programmes were notable; I think a clarification on this issue would probably decide my ultimate decision. While I understand your analysis of the coverage of his illness, there is nothing that goes beyond routine coverage. If his illness is what makes him well-known (or if it raised his profile), then I don't think it is enough for an article on an actor. On the other hand, if he is notable independent of his illness, then an article is perfectly reasonable. As I said, I am not too familiar with Mexican culture, so am willing to alter my views based on what other evidence/arguments people provide. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out earlier, look up any of the especially later items in his resume. Simplemente Maria, for example, in which he costarred, and which ran for 150 episodes, was the highest grossing Mexican telenovela for some years. People seem to be repeating themselves about no data while not looking at the supplied data. We have also established that Spanish language sources are valid, so if you cannot read those sources, I think you can only be neutral. You cannot just keep saying that you have no information. Trudyjh (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that is enough for me. That would make him notable beyond just having an illness; I am now confident that a keep vote would be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out earlier, look up any of the especially later items in his resume. Simplemente Maria, for example, in which he costarred, and which ran for 150 episodes, was the highest grossing Mexican telenovela for some years. People seem to be repeating themselves about no data while not looking at the supplied data. We have also established that Spanish language sources are valid, so if you cannot read those sources, I think you can only be neutral. You cannot just keep saying that you have no information. Trudyjh (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure at the moment. None of the sources seem to go into much detail about his acting career (though, as I don't feel Spanish, correct me if I am wrong). WP:ENT requires significant roles in notable televisions programmes or films. Because I am not familiar with the actor of with Mexican television, I simply do not know whether his roles were significant or whether the programmes were notable; I think a clarification on this issue would probably decide my ultimate decision. While I understand your analysis of the coverage of his illness, there is nothing that goes beyond routine coverage. If his illness is what makes him well-known (or if it raised his profile), then I don't think it is enough for an article on an actor. On the other hand, if he is notable independent of his illness, then an article is perfectly reasonable. As I said, I am not too familiar with Mexican culture, so am willing to alter my views based on what other evidence/arguments people provide. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (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.