Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belén Rodríguez


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Belén Rodríguez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is poorly written, obviously by editor(s) who don't have a sufficient command of the English language. I have tried to improve the lead. Nevertheless, this article is nowhere near readiness for WP:MAINSPACE. Every section, if not every sentence, contains grammatical errors rendering it virtually unreadable. See the TALK page. Furthermore, the information included does not seem to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Its current state seems to be no more than a badly translated fan page.

A previous WP:PROD request has been deleted by an unregistered user, as was the Talk page entry discussing it. The article seems to be held hostage by unregistered users who revert attempts at improving it, nor have they participated in discussion on the TALK page. In accordance with policy, I have escalated the deletion request to (AfD). Please read through the article and leave your feedback whether this article should remain on MAINSPACE. Veritycheck (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion the subject is clearly notable, and issues such as grammar can be fixed by editing, including if necessary removing large parts of the content. If there are problems with the behaviour of some editors then the ways to deal with them are blocking and/or page protection, not deletion of an article about an obviously notable topic. And, for the record, I am not the editor who removed the talk page section. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Veritycheck (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Per nom"... as in you agree with yourself? Your deletion nomination is considered your !vote. Please do not reiterate it with bolded del. votes below, as explained at WP:DISCUSSAFD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here the user Veritycheck vandalize this discussion because he deleted this comment of the user-autopatroller Shawn in Montreal and this is NOT admissible for the rules of Wikipedia. I ask a permanent block against the user Veritycheck because he cannot delete a comment written by another user: only an user-administrator can do it and Veritycheck is NOT an administrator. --151.67.92.142 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is clearly notable. After 4 years of absence, this user returns in Wikipedia to vandalize this subject. This user is crazy? And who deleted (see history) for many times the User talk:Veritycheck because this user wants to hide, in obvious violation of the rules, many alerts written against him by many administrators? Naturally the User:Veritycheck! This user is clearly only a troll and I ask a permanent block against User:Veritycheck. --151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please let's take discussions of behaviour elsewhere, and focus here on whether this article should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote "Keep. The subject is clearly notable" and now I write that Belen Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy. It's very incredibile that an user want delete this subject because she hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy.--151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no argument that the subject is notable. That is not the problem here. It is that the entire article is not written in a level of English sufficient for a page on Wikipedia. I also have strong doubts as to whether the bulk of the information included is noteworthy. Concerning your personal accusations against me, I ask you to provide sources that illustrate poor conduct on my part. Veritycheck (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This source demonstrates your bad behavior: please, you cannot delete your alerts administrators write in your personal user page, ok? You wrote "I have no argument that the subject is notable. That is not the problem here" but you want delete this subject. Ehm... if a subject is badly written, you cannot delete: you must wrote. But if you don't know the subject, you can't delete information and their professional sources (you deleted some articles of Corriere della Sera, one of the most important newspaper in Italy and your deletion is not a good choice for Wikipedia).--151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As your source shows, those deletes were to my UserTalk page which I am entitled to make. Furthermore, I have never edited articles for Corriere della Sera. If you wish to make further personal attacks on me, take it to my TALK page. Let's leave this discussion to whether the artcle should be deleted or not. Veritycheck (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are very incredible! Here you deleted, for example, an "archive version of an old article" (if you don't pay, you can not read. But you can use the archive for reading) of Corriere della Sera: you deleted  From 2004 to December 2008, Rodríguez was a  and plaese note that you deleted this "archived version" of a Corriere's article. This is one example of your crazy deletions. Bye! --151.67.75.151 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with VerityCheck, this article is written in very poor English and it does contain incorrect sentences. 2001:569:70DD:7500:CC1B:7909:72FC:CB69 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why you deleted many alerts written against you by many administrators in your personal talk? I really struggled to try to restore them. The current rules of Wikipedia did NOT permit your deletions. I ask officially a permanent block against this user. You are "incorrect", not the sentences in Belen Rodriguez's page. I ask an official CU investigation against this user and VerityCheck because I am not idiot, you are the same user with the same behaviors and the same ideas (see The duck test) and anyway... if the page is poorly written (which is not true), then you must correct and write (NOT delete) the page because the subject is enciclopedic.--151.67.75.151 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 151.67.75.151, your off-topic posts here are counter-productive and disruptive to this discussion. If you have any issue with people's behaviour elsewhere then this is not the place to discuss them. The article should obviously be kept, but you are not helping to get that result by deflecting this discussion on to irrelevant issues. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok... but I strongly "suspect" that the three users (2001:569:70DD:7500:CC1B:7909:72FC:CB69, Veritycheck and Steam5) are "associated" to each other. Plaese note that User talk:Veritycheck disappeared when I have demonstrated that he has deleted an "archived version" of an article written by the Corriere della Sera and note that the other two users (2001:569:70DD:7500:CC1B:7909:72FC:CB69 and Steam5) arrived only after... this is very funny.--151.67.75.151 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per VerityCheck. Steam5 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Your comment is NOT valid. My comment is this: "Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy because she hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy". Your comment is...?--151.67.75.151 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is clearly notable. Belen Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy. She hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy. If a page is "badly written", you MUST rewrite, NOT delete, because the page is clearly enciclopedic (and Rodriguez's page is clearly enciclopedic); this is my last comment for this discussion: goodbye. --151.67.75.151 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is pretty clear. The article needs copyediting, trimming and better referencing, not deletion.   PK  T (alk)  01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep; the article can be broadly trimmed, even to a stub level if necessary, but its subject is clearly notable in the Italian show business.--Pampuco (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

7-day Summary
Although at this time there is not a clear consensus on whether the article should be deleted or not, I have summarised the feedback of those who have participated in this AfD so far: 
 * 3 editors suggest the article should be deleted on the grounds of the poor level of English used.
 * 4 editors suggest it should not be deleted, with 3 of them adding that the article could be (broadly) trimmed or reduced to a stub.

The only consensus there seems to be at the moment is that the subject is notable. Is that the only criteria required to be included in MAINSPACE? In my interpretation of Wiki policy, it is not. Consider that the following represents a single sentence taken from the article in its current state. It is indicative of the level of English used throughout. I have removed citations to make it easier to read, if that is even possible. In January 2015 definitely ended the professional relationship, which began ten years ago, between Belen Rodriguez and Milan fashion shows for John Richmond in favor of the Venezuelan model Mariana Rodríguez assisted by Paola Benegas (who ten years earlier had launched Belen in the world of fashion: this news caused a sensation at the Italian press for this reason, but also because of the alleged relationship, that in reality does not exist, between "the two Rodríguez" launched by the agency of Paola Benegas at Milan fashion shows of Richmond, that are Belen and Mariana).  As you can see, making this article legible will be quite a task and one that I am not ready to take on. It needs to be rewritten in its entirety. If no other editor here volunteers to copyedit, then I suggest they be bold and start trimming! As the nominator for this AfD, I will leave that job to others to avoid getting into edit warring with those editors who are content to see the article remain in its current form. I have brought it to your attention, and given my opinion. Veritycheck (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors: consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. The user Veritycheck is only a troll. This user "plays with the rules" (see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) and I ask a permanent block against this user because the behaviors of Veritycheck are totally against the rules. The article of Belen Rodriguez is good and legible: it NOT needs to be rewritten, but it needs an expansion to include her television activities of the most recent years. The sources used in the article are prestigious: for example, I used many journalistic articles (or archived copies) of the Corriere della Sera, but Veritycheck deleted the sources. In this discussion, I asked why the user Veritycheck deleted the sources, but he NEVER replied and he vandalized the talk of Belen Rodriguez in violation of the rules (see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Please note these two amazing coincidences: after 4 years of absence, the user Veritycheck returns in Wikipedia to vandalize the article of Belen Rodriguez and in this discussion three users (Veritycheck, Steam5 and 2001:569:70DD:7500:CC1B:7909:72FC:CB69) used the same arguments because they are the same user with the same behaviors and the same ideas (see The duck test). I ask an official CU investigation and the elimination of all their arguments in this discussion. In conclusion, the other users declared themselves in favor of keeping of the Belen Rodriguez's actual article saying that is inadmissible play with the rules (if an user thinks that article is badly written, the user MUST re-write it, NOT delete an enciclopedic article). The two "IP 151" in this discussion are the same person, that is me (I have a Dynamic IP address); here Veritycheck call an other user to "vote" with him: this is NOT admissible (in the Italian edition of Wikipedia this behavior produces the user's permanent block and the deletion of the user's arguments in the AfD discussion). Many thanks for your attention: keep this article because the subject is enciclopedic and the article NOT needs to be re-written because is good and legible, it needs an expansion to include her television activities of the most recent years.--151.67.45.164 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Here the user Veritycheck vandalize this discussion because he deleted this comment of the user-autopatroller Shawn in Montreal and this is NOT admissible for the rules of Wikipedia. I am the dynamic IP 151 and I officially ask a permanent block against the user Veritycheck because he can NOT delete a comment written by another user: only an user-administrator can do it and Veritycheck is NOT an administrator. --151.67.92.142 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (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.