Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María del Luján Telpuk


 * 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   speedy keep.  MBisanz  talk 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

María del Luján Telpuk

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

Irrelevant, redundant with the Maletinazo article. Orphan article. The story about the case could be relevant, but not this person. Goddess (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the first time I have seen a WP:GA at WP:AFD, but I guess that is sort of irrelevant. However, most of the text is distinct from Maletinazo, which has not even been updated for events for the last six months.  Thus, if one should be deleted it should be the other since this one has much of the current detail.  Additionally, much of the other text about her career in this bio is distinct from the scandal article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This individual has developed into an undeniable minor celebrity with an unquestionable claim to notability. Although, in the performance of her low-level job, she did uncover the tip of an international corruption scandal, her rise to fame was obviously fueled by her physical appearance and personality as well as intense media interest.  Simply a cursory glance at the article's fourteen professionally presented footnotes (note no. 2 is no longer valid), including a front-page story in The Wall Street Journal, magazine covers and newspaper photographs, confirms the validity of her Wikipedia entry.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I do not see this when I go to WP:AFD and look at the 11th. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have transcluded the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted by Roman, we have several good sources on the article. How could an article possibly pass the Good Article review if it were irrelevant and redundent?  I'm not questioning the nom's good faith, but I really don't see any good reason to delete.  Even if it's redundant to Maletinazo, the better course would be to propose a merger.  Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep GA, well-referenced with sources that establish subject's notability above and beyond WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's done modelling unrelated to the scandal, which means WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Article being an orphan can be handled by editing and if this is indeed were duplicate information from the scandal a merge would be infinitely better than a deletion. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 12 December 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.