Talk:Soledad Barrett Viedma

Notability
, I've seen that you marked the article with a notability tag. I created the article because I was certain that the subject met WP:GNG. Here are what I consider several IRS:


 * , from Última Hora (Paraguay), a major newspaper in Paraguay, used in the article.
 * , from Memorias da Ditadura, a Brazilian charity which documents victims of Brazil's dictatorship, included in the article. The charity is sponsored by the federal government of Brazil and the United Nations Development Programme.

These two already establish GNG since both are reliable. I realise that both website do not appear up to the standard of a reliable source in the English speaking world, but both have solid credentials. For UK subjects, an article from the Guardian and a government endowed charity would clearly do the trick.

Then there are the following sources:


 * , from Bitácora, which is a news provider but I'm not sure about its reliability, used in the article.
 * , from Correio do Brazil, a newspaper from Brazil. Although they don't have an article on here, I see no reason why their reliability should be in doubt.

Seeing that GNG is not in doubt, I presume that you might see this as falling under WP:1E for being killed in the Massacre da Chácara São Bento. While the massacre is the main factor in her notability, I think the sources discuss enough signifiant content about her life beyond that one event: 1) her abduction by Neo-Nazis in Uruguay, 2) her relationship with Cabo Anselmo, a major figure in Brazilian politics after the coup of 1964 and 3) the fact that a journalist, Elio Gaspari, managed to reveal in his book that her death was subject to a cover-up by the government. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you reviewed the page. Am I right to assume that you agree with my assessment of notability? Modussiccandi (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you may be mistaking NOTABILITY for VERIFIABILITY. There is no doubt that this person existed, since sources 1, 2, and 3 you provided above verify that.  The problem is that per Notability (people) she seems to be known for only one reason: being a rebel/victim (see CRIME) that was killed in a purported massacre.  Being known for one such event is usually not enough to get one a stand-alone Wikipedia article.  Perhaps listing her as one of the victims in an article on the massacre itself would work here. That is why I tagged it instead of taking it straight to AfD.  This way, other editors can possibly find additional information and bring it up to a higher notability standard.
 * Also, I noticed several other red-links you have in the article, and if I am right in assuming that some of these are for planned articles on her co-revolutionaries, any article written about them would probably run into the same barrier. I think, however, they all could fit nicely into an over-arching article about the movement or the massacre, but stand-alone articles on the others would not be the way to proceed.  (Just an idea: I could move this article to a title you choose, and you could use it for the basis of such an article, if you want.)  Feel free to contact me further about this.  I am not a Spanish speaker/reader, however, so I may not be the best in helping with this, but I think that by putting up a tag for a bit perhaps someone will step up and provide further input on this issue before taking it to AfD.  Thanks for your work here.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 17:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. We've both said that problem is the she might fall under WP:1E, and I acknowledge that the massacre is the main reason most of these sources exist. Now, I now it's not always possible to say anything of note about people involved in notable events and yes they should not have stand-alone articles. In this case, however, the sources provide a good amount of detail about her life and her involvement in another newsworthy incident in Uruguay involving a group of Neo-Nazis. I believe this lifts her over the threshold. This reminded my of a difficult AfD I recently !voted in which came down to the same issue. I !voted "delete" (upon checking, I actually voted redirect) because the only piece of verified information available about the subject was his role in starting the Wounded Knee Massacre. In the AfD, what might have saved the subject was the significance of the event, here I believe it is the amount of verifiable biographical information not relating to the one event in question.


 * The opposite would be true of the other victims of the massacre: since we only know their names in connection with their death, they fall under WP:1E. Soledad Barrett Viedma is an outlier because she had a famous grandfather, played a role in the life of a notable rebel, Cabo Anselmo and because she was kidnapped on a previous occasion to some outrage in Uruguay. None of these factors make her notable per se but I think the combination of these factors does. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with notability. Putting aside her grandfather and her relationships with José Maria Ferreira de Araújo and José Anselmo de Santos as notability is not inherited, her activism, the specifics of which are not brought out in the sources (but may be available in other sources), we are left with two well documented events: her kidnapping in 1962 and her death, so I don't see that WP:BIO1E is applicable here. Looking at her VIAF entry there are a multitude of sources about her available, so it may be possible to find specifics of her activism. --John B123 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * But then you have arguments to avoid and are still facing the the above issue(s). It is possible the kidnapping could push the notability over the top, but doubtful, as it is only mentioned in passing and doesn't appear to have had significant coverage.  Maybe you could find more on it?  I think we need additional insight/discussion on these points through community consensus.  Thoughts?  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 19:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done some research. I have found an article in the journal Encuentros Uruguayos. I'm afraid it's in Spanish but there is a full paragraph about the incident in Uruguay (1962). Here's the link . I'll endeavour to find more sources but, since her overall GNG was never in doubt, I think this is a good indication of her not falling under WP:1E. I believe this, together with John B123's comment, should assuage you concerns. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to the kidnapping and scarification, mentions in passing or not, still establishes that WP:BIO1E is not applicable, especially as there are contemporaneous news reports, such as here and that the incident "had wide repercussions on Uruguayan public opinion" . --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

1E does not necessarily apply when the person has been subject for sustained, in-depth and significant coverage beyond their role in that event. An (extreme) example is Rosa Parks, who could be considered notable for a single event, but her life was later covered by reliable sources beyond that single event.

Soledad Barrett Viedma has been covered in a few books, including at least two biographies (Mota 2009, Martínez 2018 ) and a chapter in a book about notable women in Paraguay (Barreto 2011 ). Further coverage, some in connection to both biographies, some independent of it can be found in Uruguayan, Brazilian and Paraguayan newspapers.

There is also further coverage in biographies and other books about the Barrett family, including but not limited to Soledad. Also, in popular culture, her story was featured in a Mario Benedetti poem and a Daniel Viglietti song, both of them also subject of wide coverage. Viglietti wrote about Barrett in a book chapter too.

Considering some of these sources, I don't think there's any notability issue. More and better sources could be used as reference for the English article, but that doesn't affect notability. --MarioGom (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)