Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Cortez


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Julia Cortez

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

Non-notable person. Net search finds many other people named Julia Cortez far more frequently. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Two minor roles almost 15 years ago, no awards, no significant coverage, I think she fails WP:BIO-WP:ENTERTAINER.  SIS   12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I appreciate the notability concerns, but what you are looking at here is an instance where it shouldn't apply, because the article informs people and improves Wikipedia by existing.  If she'd only been in one film or the other, I'd go for redirect.  Yes, we need to draw lines in the sand. They don't however, have to be straight. The other option is to consider writing an article on a few of the more notable Julia Cortez's and then making a dab page on which an entry could sit.  But I think deleting this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Notability is only guidance.  Improving the encyclopedia is policy. Hiding T 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a marginal BLP with no cited sources. The name is relatively common, but even with confounding terms removed, no news cites show up that aren't just a mention of the characters she plays with her name in parentheses.  Web searches show up automatically generated filmographies and the like.  There is nothing with which a biographical article could be built.  We do not need this article to serve as an intersection between two roles in a movie.  As for "lines being drawn in the sand", we have them already. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lines in the sand aren't straight or infinite. My personal opinion is that we're a better encyclopedia with this article than without it. And that is the only debate that matters. I'm happy for people to disagree, and will respect whatever consensus forms, but I'd we didn't kid ourselves that anything is more important than building the best encyclopedia.  This isn't so much aimed at you so much as it is just an iteration of the fact that rules are subservient to the encyclopedia rather than defining of.  As to the article being unsourced, that isn't true, it actually cites two movies. Hiding T 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to feel that only some debates matter. I suspect that the encyclopedia is better off if we do not have an article on a human being that is only sourced to two casting lists.  I also suspect that the community (in general, although far from unanimously) feels that we are better off without articles that cite no independent sources covering the subject.  I am not kidding myself at any stage of this.  This is just a difference of opinion.  Neither of us feels that the rules govern the encyclopedia without exception or reason.  You feel that the encyclopedia is bettered with the existence of this article.  I do not.  The motivations behind those feelings are different enough that we two can simultaneously hold them in good faith. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Although she appeared in notable films, her presence in both productions is too minor to justify inclusion here. Sorry, Julia. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (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.