Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Martínez


 * 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. ✗ plicit  06:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Kathleen Martínez

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It uses prose and flowery language with most citations being Spanish sources from the Dominican Republic. Others are orphaned. It's about a Dominican lawyer who is supposedly on the verge of discovering the "ancient tomb" of Cleopatra and has "led" many excavations in Egypt. No RS nor Egyptian sources confirms this. It seems like a vanity project leveraging Wikipedia to enhance local notability. Moreover, the same IP has been editing this article. A knowledgeable editor can take a look at this.2601:18A:C67F:8210:90D3:A523:9AB0:DAF9 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from WT:AFD.  I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk  08:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Archaeology, Egypt,  and Dominican Republic.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment National Geographic magazine, easily a reliable source, included multiple pages of text on Martínez in their 2011 article about Cleopatra. I have added that citation to the article, and ProQuest lists other articles quoting her work (though I have not yet added them to the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Language and nationality aren't criteria for sources being unreliable. ABC, Diario Libre, and El País are major newspapers, for instance. Please provide more specifics on which points aren't adequately supported. Nick Number (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the generous mentions in the National Geographic provide a strong evidence of notability. Newklear007 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, no policy-based argument for deletion has been put forth, and judging from a review of sources, the subject meets GNG. On a side note to filing user User:Finngall, this fails WP:AFDHOWTO. Sam Sailor 22:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it fail WP:AFDHOWTO? They tagged the article, they provided an argument.  I'm pretty lenient when it comes to completing AfD noms initiated by IPs in all but the most extreme cases, even those which seem like pretty clear "keep"s to me.  These IP-initiated noms do indeed vary widely in terms of merit, but the same can be said for noms from actual accounts, and either way this does not mean that they have not been made in good faith.  --Finngall talk  23:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the magnitude of Kathleen Matinez’s latest discovery, I hope this page can be updated and corrected rather than deleted. Thanks for considering reader input. 2600:1008:B10D:2755:8DFA:2031:E061:A8E0 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 13 November 2022 (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.