Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Burbano


 * 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 delete. Clear consensus heading towards deleted. Due to the SPI and that no good will come of this discussion being left open further, I am closing it a number of hours early. Mkdw talk 02:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Diana Burbano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are listing or lack independence. Per Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject. red dogsix (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources cited are by her, affiliated with her, or passing mentions, or have no mention at all. The HowlRound article mentions her the most frequently, but it's still thin, without a real focus on her. My own search turns up nothing more substantial. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - thanks for starting this, I thought of doing so earlier today. I've looked for sources but found nothing that is better than what is already in the article, and as already stated, those sources are either primary or trivial. Several of the sources merely mention her name in a list of people, and two of them don't mention her at all. HowlRound is a user created website, and I agree that the article is not deep coverage, even if it could be considered a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * comment Every mainstream sites likes nytimes, guardian , huffingstonpost all are based on user type entry as they are either permanent journalists or temperory. There is a nytimes link mentioning the works of Diana in the article. Always :)  16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)
 * Please use four tildes to sign your name to edits.  red dogsix (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I always do that Always :) is my customised sign when i use 4 tild signs to sign Always :) 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As it says at WP:CUSTOMSIG, "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page." Your signature lacks links to both your user and user talk pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT I just now noted User:reddogsix harassing me by telling lie and he state Per Sockpuppet investigations/Alwayssmileguys it appears editor was assigned to create this article by article subject Thats a lie ! And i dont know why the user is upon me for this . He initially speeded this article even though it had enough links including nytimes link and few interview links . further he placed socketpuppy investigation on me of me and now telling some lie . Always :) 16:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - When someone states, "I was trying to fix a Wiki page that someone created for me..." is does appears the work was created as a request of the subject. I did not say this was the case, I only said it appears to be the case.  There is no harassment, only an application of WP:DUCK.
 * Once more, Please use four tildes to sign your name to edits.   red dogsix (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You say "even though it had enough links", but quantity alone is insufficient. A list of a hundred links to articles written by the subject herself, or on the websites of organizations she's affiliated with, or that only just mention her name in passing wouldn't, on its own, support inclusion. The New York Times reference is nothing but a standard listing of biographical data that they keep for everyone they mention in their paper. Note that they don't even have a biography for her, just a raw listing of the shows she's been involved with. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment "I was trying to fix a Wiki page that someone created for me..." means what ? How can you conclude that it meant that he/she requested me to create a page ? Terrible Always :)  (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep An article from Los Angeles Times fourth most widely distributed newspaper in America. A filmography link from The New York Times second largest newpaper in America, a quality article about Diana Burbano from Howlround. A link from Metropolitan Community College official website and many more proves notability of the playwright , A quality link from broadwayworld is also added. Always :)  (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Let's be clear here, the article in the LA Times only mentions the subject as someone that played the character Lullabelle. As stated before, the "New York Times reference is nothing but a standard listing of biographical data that they keep for everyone they mention in their paper" - a simple listing.  The Howlround article is not really about her - although she is briefly mentioned - the article fails to provide non-trivial coverage.  I am not sure what you mean by "quality link,"  but the "broadwayworld" link is not an article of substance, only an announcement her play will be read on a certain date - again it lacks substance.  red dogsix</i> (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Please read the notability guidelines and understand them before bringing up the same sources again. Besides the ones that reddog6 dealt with, the MCC page is very much exactly not the sort of source that supports notability. She's participating in a program of theirs, so of course she's included in a listing of the people who are in that program. It isn't an independent source. And all they mention is her name, her city of residence, and the title of her play. This isn't substantial coverage. Citing this source to establish notability is like citing the phone book. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * pls include List of playwrights from the United States as well . Thanks Always :) (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These are established lists of deletion discussions. They exist to help people who are interested in participating in deletion discussions on topics in particular areas of interest find them. There isn't a list of deletion discussions specific to playwrights from the United States. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the level of threatening behavior displayed by User:reddogsix and User:Largoplazo in this thread is horrible and unnecessary. I cannot believe how anyone can consider this as acceptable. --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!"  22:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this threatening behaviour?Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By "threatening behavior", do you mean something other than "threatening to support the removal of an article that doesn't conform to guidelines"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @MurderByDeadcopy! - It is easy to make a inaccurate statement, but difficult to support it. I see you have not provided support for your ridiculous comment.   .  red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with that the tone of this discussion has turned somewhat hostile. The discussion should deal with the article,  its sources and so on. I'm sorry, but AfD guidelines state that even if an article is created for allegedly vanity reasons that's not a solid reason for deletion. Constantly reminding another editor here of their mistakes is in bad form. It's uneccesary and clogs the discussion.  Take that to the talk page. A lot of assumptions have been made here and it's ruining the discussion. Focus on facts, not assertions that this is a vanity or puff article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches only found a few mentions here and there with "Diana Burbano playwright" at News, browsers and Highbeam and hardly much for a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note This discussion has been protected while an SPI is being conducted. One editor has alluded that the article was created as part of a learning exercise. As such, this AFD discussion is being restricted to only auto-confirmed accounts as to avoid further drawn out arguments. If the SPI is inconclusive, I will remove the semi-protection. I remind all parties in this discussion to please remain civil. I encourage that extra leniency be shown to new editors so as not to bite them while in the same breath censuring for making personal attacks. No matter the situation, WP:NPA must always be adhered.  Mkdw talk 06:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment New reference links are added to support the article. Always :) (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your trying, but, in the order in which the new sources appear in the reference list:
 * BroadwayWorld.com: Passing mention.
 * dgfund.org: An organization writing about its own activities. Not independent.
 * dramatistsguild.com: An organization's profile of its own member. Not independent.
 * oc-centric:An interview with a participant in the organization's own program. Not independent. (If this had been in the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times, that might have been a different matter.)
 * South Coast Repertory: Her own company and only a passing mention.
 * The Frida Cinema: Passing mention in a long list of names.
 * —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If a person gets oscar, the oscar website is the best reference link it seems ,as the support link ? Am i right ? Similarly i used dgfund.org and dramatistsguid.com as references . Always :) (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For verification, but not to establish notability. For example, Oscars themselves are considered notable because they're written about, in depth, everywhere, not because they're written about on the Oscar website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough non-trivial coverage beyond a few local mentions to satisfy WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This article was created at 19:02. Only seven  minutes later while the creator was  obviously working on improving the article user:Reddogsix nominated it for CSD-A7: No indication of importance Take a look at the article and tell do you agree? Just that in itself indicates to me that the nominator has not done his homework and is way too aggressive. It was very fortunate that the admin who rejected the speedy happened to be there. I have seen other admins who just could not be bothered to do even a minimal check.


 * Instead of taking a deep breath and doing some checking what does Reddogsix do — proceeds directly to AfD, Sigh... would you do that if you are seriously considering what is best for wikipedia? Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me


 * @Ottawahitech - can you really read my mind and determine I did not research the article? I am amazed and impressed by your abilities.  If the notability guidelines are ever removed then we would not have this conversation because all individuals would be entitled to an article, but then what would be the use of having Wikipedia.  Focus on the substance of the article and if it meets the criteria for inclusion, I did.   red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * to add to the above statement putting comments in your edit summary like you did is not appropriate. Edit summaries are not meant for comments other than a summary of your actual edit. Mrfrobinson (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not one person was premature or correct in applying A7 to the article isn't relevant to the consideration here of whether the article should be deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Trivial coverage.  Magnolia677 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the various references are passing and trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor has been blocked for socking, not paid editing. Stop making these accusations unless you have proof. It's unnecessary! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account for socking, true. I also stated at the SPI that the individual was "fairly clearly a paid editor." Proof? This is not a court of law, but every editor (perhaps not you) who has looked at this individual's edits - and that includes all of their socks - has reached the same conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2015 (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.