Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Terrazas aka Amalia Terrazas


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Emily Terrazas aka Amalia Terrazas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod. Non-notable person. The author also appears to be the subject of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One question, how do you guys know that User:Amaliaterrazas is Emily Terrazas aka Amalia Terrazas? It seems to me that you guys are making a (rather large) assumption here. 10:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ω (talk)
 * Note the word appears. Ridernyc (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... well, at the very least the article does need to be moved. The naming scheme is simply incorrect, but that alone doesn't really justify deletion (does it?). The article does mention some awards and television shows, however. That could easily justify at least a stub level article, if the content were rewritten properly. I don't really care about the subject matter enough to look into it at all, but I can easily imagine that this person is notable but you and I just don't realize it. Ω (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IF your not going to actually look into it then don't comment, for your information I tried find sources to establish notability and could find none. Ridernyc (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem there though is, why should I care if you couldn't find sources? I know for a fact that I would have a tough time finding sources for 3/4 of the articles on Wikipedia. Is that a reason to delete 3/4 of the articles? All I'm hoping for is that maybe someone will stop and consider, is deletion perhaps not the best solution? Just stop and take a look at all of the nominations here! It's almost a wonder that there are any articles on Wikipedia at all... Ω (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your arguments in many AFD's seem very pointy to me. I think you have concerns about notability in general and should take them to the appropriate policy and guideline talk pages.  Ridernyc (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, you have my apologies. I'm definitely not intending to be "pointy"... I do have a concern with the use of WP:NOTE, but not with it's existence. I don't see what I could bring up in terms of making a "policy change" that would address the manner in which the guideline is often, in my view, misused. If you'd like to steer me in some direction though, I'm all ears.
 * I would very much like to point out one thing from the Notability guideline itself, though:
 * These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * Ω (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And under which of those polices have you found anything to support inclusion of this article? Again if you have issues with notability go discuss it at WP:N.  If you have found sources that establish notability for the subject of this article make that case here, not general complaints about notability. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, I don't really need to argue for the article. It's a similar principle to "innocent until proven guilty", since the default action is keep. Regardless, if you want to have a personal debate on the subject then I'm more then willing to carry on on your talk page about it (or my own, for that matter). Ω (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really true - subjects are considered unnotable unless proven otherwise. WP:BURDEN says that material "challenged or likely to be challenged" - and that includes the entirety of this article - "must be attributed to a reliable, published source... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That would appear to be the case here. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:BURDEN is within the WP:V policy, not the WP:NOTE guideline. I have no real issue with deleting many of these articles, but you guys should provide some good reasons (for example, see Edison (talk)'s reply below). At the very least, the next admin or whoever that comes along could then WP:SPEEDY rather then having to drag people through all of this... Ω (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, WP:BURDEN is part of WP:V, which is a policy. Does that not count as a 'good reason'? Or do you disagree with my interpretation of the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"?
 * Edison also cites the same lack of sources which Ridernyc and I do, and then makes comments about the style of the article which is actually more a matter for rewrite than deletion.
 * As for speedy deletion: there's a very specific set of circumstances under which that's allowable, and I don't see that this article meets any of them. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point(s) are that if your arguing that the page should be deleted based on WP:V, then use WP:V as a reason rather then WP:NOTE. At least then there is a clear and concise argument about why the page should be deleted.
 * The reason that I pointed out Edison's arguments below is precisely because their good arguments. My question is, why weren't at least one of those arguments used initially rather then a lame "it's not noteworthy" argument. Take a look around at the rest of the AfD nominations. The sheer number of "delete per WP:NOTE" nominations/reasoning given here recently is a perfect reason to question every single one of them. You may not agree with that, but obviously I do, and it seems to be having some impact.
 * Anyway, the reason that I brought up speedy deletion is because, when the article is recreated after it's deleted (due to the fact that none of you were going to make a compelling argument that the article should stay deleted), instead of an admin being able to reference this nomination and saying "ok, this is just a WP:RECREATE so I can speedy delete it", this whole long drawn out process will be rehashed... AGAIN Ω (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it should be and stay deleted is that the subject seems to lack any sources to establish notability, in violation of WP:V, WP:N and WP:BIO. In my opinion those (or the relevant bits of them) say essentially the same thing, but I can be explicit if it helps: my deletion rationale is per all of those. Anyway, I'm not sure we need to extend this discussion - at least not on the AfD page. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless someone is trying to make a belaboured point. My "delete" is based on the guideline WP:NOTE which states in the first paragraph that "[w]ithin Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or 'worthy of notice'". A guideline is a perfectly legitimate criteria for deletion, but it must be stressed that within this guideline, notability criteria is essentially backed-up by a requirement for verifiability. They go hand in hand. Perhaps some of us are using some editorial short-hand during this discussion, which I admit is rather exclusionist if a newcomer were to pop in. For that, I would apologize, although it must be stressed that WP:NOTE is clickable and any closing administrator worth her or his "power" (ahem) would fully understand what we are all getting at here. This article, in my opinion fails to demonstrate evidence of notability and notability, which is claimed in the article, cannot be verified.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should write some sort of essay... (although, doing that seems somewhat egotistical...). Regardless, here's one reply that I made earlier for your consideration: User_talk:Excirial Ω (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any sources to indicate the subject's notability, which as Ω says is the criteria for inclusion in a dedicated article. If Ω or anyone else wants to suggest a suitable target for merger I'm happy to listen but I suspect there isn't one. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Olaf Davis. Does not satisfy WP:NOTE, the only real criteria for keep or delete.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources provided to satisfy WP:BIO. The article is a blathery and frothy piece of apparent self-adulation, along with extravagant praise for everyone who helped the subject in her career. It reads at times like a Christmas letter, full of bragging. Edison (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. I just gave the article a sandblasting for style to remove much of the hyperbole and fluff, and then went looking for sourcing. Unfortunatley, I came up with empty hands for Emily Terrazas... as not even listed in cast for those two Spanish shows. I did find some 9-year-old sources for Amalia Terrazas, but not much enough upon which to build an article. There is far too much in the BLP that is unsourcable. Bless her for being creative, but this one will have to wait.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lot's of "assisted on" and "helped with" stuff, but no notability of her own. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete my search did not turn up sources to support that this person is notable enough for a biographical entry in Wikipedia. Enki H. (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability, since it does not say the childrens' books have been published. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (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.