Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta Andrada


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Loretta Andrada

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

Contested PROD. I have not been able to locate any evidence that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER (there would be at least a few sources if she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") or the primary criteria at WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on her. Obviously I do believe at the moment that it should be deleted, but I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier (I only have access to the Internet and American library systems). As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources). Cheers, CP 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The relevant information in the article appears to substantiated by online sources. The idea that an article should be deleted because one user lacks access to the resources needed to more completely substantiate it is hardly sensible. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What relevant information? Yes, we can confirm that she was in a movie or two, but only in trivial mentions that don't address WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N. Furthermore, the nomination is based on the fact that there are no sources to meet WP:N not that I lack the resources to find them (although, the onus for sourcing is always on the individual who adds the material anyways). I simply added a caveat that I would be willing to reconsider if other sources demonstrating notability became available. I'm not arguing that the current material is not verifiable, just that it doesn't establish notability. Cheers, CP 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence this person meets any notability standards whatsoever. And yes, that is a basic requirement, not a minor technicality. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This "appears to be substantiated by online sources?" Which sources would they be, please?  As it stands, this violates WP:V.    RGTraynor  11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please remember that Philippine online sources are not as efficient as its Western counterparts. However, the year indicated for Kamay ng Diyos is different from the article.  This film was released in 1947, not 1934. Starczamora (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While with a close native Filipino friend who's a webaholic I might demure, the upshot is that efficient or not, without any sources at all, an article cannot be sustained.   RGTraynor  21:45, 9 September 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.