- 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The result was Withdrawn, no outstanding delete recomendations. GB fan 12:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Matilde Artero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The article currently has only imdb as a source. GB fan 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this sad one-line stub, and allow it to be properly expanded and sourced through regular editing. SIGCOV is not a mandate for an actress whose career was non-English and predated the internet by many decades. The individual's body of work from 1926 through 1961 meets WP:ENT and is easily verifiable. In looking at the article history, I have concerns. While respecting the work of New Page Patrol in preventing inappropriate articles, this one was tagged for speedy just THREE minutes after its creation, so I wonder if the tagger found the numerous book sources on the actress to be somehow unconvincing that the brand new article has any reasonable chance to be improved or sopurced. The speedy was properly declined, and the brand new article was then sent to AFD 24 hours later. Even as a new stub, we do not delete notable topics. Tagging for expansion and sourcing would have been far more appropriate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If MichaelQSchmidt is right then there should be no difficulty in adding one or more reliable sources to show notability. Just saying "allow it to be properly expanded and sourced" without actually doing so is no help. MichaelQSchmidt seems to be saying, in effect, "you can take my word for it that she is notable, even though I haven't provided any sources to show that she is. I am not yet saying either "keep" or "delete", to allow time for sources to be provided. However, it is now two days since the lack of sources was pointed out, and nobody has so far produced even one reliable source. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not put words in my mouuth, as it makes it appear you do not see the search results linked above... results offered so that 1) others might judge for themselves if WP:NRVE was met, and 2) to encourage others to help in fixing it. WP:SEP, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, WP:WIP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article tells us "Matilde Artero is a Spanish actress who appeared in many films" and that is all. That does not tell us whether she was a major star or a minor bit-part actress. Nothing I can find settles the matter. In its present state, even if the content of the article were supported 100% by reliable sources, the article would be worthy of speedy deletion under CSD A7. T keep this we need both reliable sources and evidence in those sources of significance. If those can be produced then we should keep it, otherwise delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh... a delete argument based upon current state. Under the CSD-A7 criteria, and while terse, "Spanish actress who appeared in many films" IS an assertion of notability that prevents this being A7'd. Passing WP:ENT or WP:GNG is a higher standard. Sources were offered above, but sources need not be in the article, as that is not how topic notability is determined. The article is the extreme stub, no doubt... but even that one sentence has content, context, and an assertion of notability. Just. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go do some work, as apparently the unspoken suggestion here is that someone else has to do the work in order to molify. Okay. But the other issue being overlooked here is a well-intended NNP who, in giving a brand new article a FULL three minutes, was perhaps a bit hasty on the trigger... specially when tagging for concerns would have been far more appropriate and far less bitey. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even before MichaelQSchmidt cleaned up the article it should have been kept as she is inherently nobility per WP:NACTOR. Thank you MQS for cleaning up the article. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NACTOR does not say anything anywhere about inherent notability. The additional criteria section which NACTOR is a subsection of says, that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Based on MichaelQSchmidt's additions and reliable sources that I couldn't find I am withdrawing my nomination. GB fan 12:58, 7 November 2011 (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.