Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Belen Shapur


 * 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 and redirect to Mark_Sanford. Those favouring deletion cite a key policy that those favouring retention counter with arguments consisting of claims to possible future notability, the false notion that a burst of media coverage is sufficient for notability, or the fact that other apparently similar biographies exist. The strength of argument thus favours deletion. Following deletion, a redirect is likely to be necessary for search purposes, as identified in the debate, which I will instate. The choice of redirect target is not binding, and is subject to usual editorial process. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Maria Belen Shapur

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

Person only notable for having an affair with a politician. Gage (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is the epitome of WP:ONEVENT. TJRC (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * comment and request for fairness This is a political article. It is subject to manipulation by supporters and opponents of the politician.  Even though there is an essay, WP:Other crap exists, we should treat all similar articles the same way.  We should keep or delete Kathleen Willey and Rielle Hunter, not pick on articles that suit our political beliefs.User F203 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article could be improved because there is information about the woman's company and her life that could be used. An article shouldn't be deleted if poorly written, just improved. User F203 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Poorly-written has nothing to do with it. She's not notable except for this affair with the governor.  Maybe there should be an article on the Governor's mishaps, instead of a just a section in his article.  That would be consistent with covering the event, not the individual whose notability derives solely from it.  On the two examples you cite, I would support Kathleen Willey being merged into Paula Jones or Troopergate (Bill Clinton).  On the face of it, Rielle Hunter appears to be more than just a one-event article; there's stuff about horse murders, being the basis for a fictional character and an acting career.  Those might just be fig leaves for an article on her just because of the Edwards fling, and if that's the case, I would likewise support moving it into John Edwards extramarital affair. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a classic WP:BLP1E. She is notable for one thing and one thing only, something which happens to not be particularly flattering in most cultures. Unless her notability changes for some reason, there is no way we should have an article about this woman just to say that she had an affair with a well known politician&mdash;that goes to the core of our BLP policy. If there's a strong consensus to delete I think a speedy deletion is completely appropriate - we don't need to let this sit around for a week if it's an obvious delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. Please also see María Belén Chapur (note the accent marks) which is currently a redirect. That appears to be the proper spelling, so at the least this article should be redirected there, but also the María Belén Chapur redirect might need to be protected for now if we decide to delete this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * note this oldid, too. $78 million? Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely non-notable woman who is having her 15 minutes of fame because of an affair. Tovojolo (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete! Bossk-Office (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mark Sanford. No need to keep this article, there's nothing notable about the subject except this single event. C ha m a l  talk 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dating a notable person isn't even WP:BLP1E. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? An extramarital affair is not the same thing as dating. Especially when the affair destroys a prominent politician's career. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect Not notable enough for a standalone article. I'm on the fence between a full delete and a redirect to the proper section of the Sanford article.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mark Sanford would be correct practice. There's no reason to have a separate article this for reasons that have been exhaustively explained above.  It remains to consider whether this is a plausible search term.  Magic 8-ball says "Yes, someone might search for Maria Belen Shapur". Obviously, it would be better if their search directed them to a useful article rather than a redlink.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the merits of merge: I am still not taking a stance on delete versus keep. However, google lists near 50,000 hits in 2 days for the 2 spellings of the name, Maria Belen Shapur/Chapur.  So there are more merits to a merge than a delete.  User F203 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She is a former TV journalist. Other more obscure TV reporters have articles, such as Gene Sherman (sportscaster).  The article should not be picked on because she is a woman or because she is an embarrassment to a popular American politician whom many supporters would love to get rid of in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Amthernandez (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Amthernandez made a Pointy edit of adding Gene Sherman to the title of this AfD and I have reverted it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge All information is already at or will cleanly fit into the main articles. Reywas92 Talk  03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Merge any relevant info into Mark Sanford.  Grover cleveland (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per one-event/blp. note the redirects at María Belén Chapur and Maria Belen Chapur now point here (well, Maria Belen Shapur). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Former television reporter who was already known to the public in Argentina through her work. Center of a major story. The article needs some help, like in-line citations, but it should stay. Scanlan (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Article does not currently assert that she was well-known in Argentina before the Sanford affair. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep she is more well known as a journalist alone than 50% of the journalists currently on wikipedia . Just because she is from Argentina and not from a small station in Kansas (where there are examples kept on wikipedia) does not make here obscure. — Mr48 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect to Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, per WP:BLP1E. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 13:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the US she might be known only for this one event, but Wikipedia is NOT a US encyclopedia. She's well known in Argentina, and this article does a good job of showing that. She is also more notable than many other newscaster articles which are not being nominated for deletion. The focus of the article is neutral and verifiable, it has references, it doesn't focus on this single event. For the poster who wanted a delete because she is famous for something "which happens to not be particularly flattering in most cultures", this is completely beside the point. Wikipedia is not a site set up to flatter people and an argument that information is unflattering is not a good reason for it to be removed. Of course, with living persons, the information needs to be verifiable and non-libelous, and this article meets those criteria. Inter lingua 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm having a hard time seeing how the article "does a good job of showing" that she was well known in Argentina before the Sanford story broke -- unless being a brunette and exercising regularly automatically make one famous in that country. The article, as it currently stands, doesn't even claim that she was well known, and certainly has no citation to that effect that antedates the Sanford affair.  Unless such claims and citations are added to the article, it should be deleted.  Grover cleveland (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment She was previously so unknown in her own country that the reporters camped out in the lobby of her building had no idea which woman going in or out might be her, and a bar owner claimed she was a blond. Several women were put forward by the media as the possible "Maria Belen" or "Maria Shapur" in question. Edison (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E all the way. Those claiming her notability as a journalist should take note that nobody cared to write the article before she was found in the affair and that when the article was written, the authors own edit summary was: "is a woman from Argentina, who had an extramarital affair with South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford.". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * interesting comment! An article creator writing an edit summary of "notable Argentine woman" would not necessarily qualify as an article to keep. Nearly all of the murderer articles are the same way (remain unwritten until a flurry of news stories) even though some obscure murderer articles do pass AFD.  Note: I am still officially neutral regarding this AFD. User F203 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When it becomes a sufficiently major story with extensive highly respectable national coverage because of the political importance, the person becomes notable. At this point everything can be sourced well enough to comply with the requirements.  As for her notability as a journalist, this would need to be further investigated. At any event, this would be a redirect, not a delete, since she is appropriately significantly mentioned in the article on the governor. DGG (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair. This is a classic example of WP:BLP1E, and we shouldn't have articles on people when, as in this case, they say hardly anything more than the article about the event does. I'm not convinced that Maria Belen Shapur is notable as a reporter separately from this event; therefore, this should be a redirect. That way, the article can always be recreated if independent notability can subsequently be demonstrated. Can't seem to find the tilde button on this computer... Hopefully Sinebot will sign this post.
 * Delete. If you want to keep this article, then you should also want to keep this one, since they both have the same notability: Articles_for_deletion/Marcus_Solis.Jarhed (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument is an example of WP:WAX, and is therefore WP:AADD.--Xoloki (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just trying to add data to the discussion.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. At this time, I do not believe she merits her own article or has established notability outside of an apparent affair. As of yet, that Sanford had an affair is the important issue in most news coverage, not who it was with.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Due to the extreme level of interest in this case, this page will become more and more popular.  Once photos of this woman are released, she will become even more of a focus of tabloids and media (especially if she is attractive -- just being realistic).  And if her relationship with the governor continues, then it will not be a one-time event.  Give it 2 weeks and then decide.  laurap414 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Please not that WP:ONEEVENT doesn't specify a "one time event" per se. Further, the "extreme level of interest" in this case is because of Sanford, his position and his erratic behavior, not because of her. Any woman could have been his mistress and had he done the same thing, the sotry would have generated the same interest. That's how I can say she is notable only because of the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Better to merge the information into Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair now.  If in two weeks she becomes notable the article can be recreated.  Predicted future notability is not relevant to current deletion discussion:  see WP:ATA.Grover cleveland (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added a citation from ABC which shows an image of her reporting from New York.Xoloki (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not establish notability under WP:CREATIVE. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with the Sanford affair article and then: delete. Recentism. We will have to wait somr time whether she desreves her own article. At present, certainly not.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * History Merge Required — assuming it survives, of course. See here and here. History is now split between Maria Belen Shapur and María Belén Chapur. Isn't it great that *anyone* can edit? No prerequisites at all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Monica Lewinsky, comes closer to WP:BLP1E than Ms. Chapur. Lewinsky, after all, has no notability that's not directly derived from her affair with Bill Clinton. Yet no serious user would suggest deleting her article. Chapur, on the other hand, was a reporter in Argentina long before the affair even started, let alone became known to the public. The only reason she didn't already have an article is regional bias toward the United State. Which is in no way a policy, it's just an result of most users of the English version of Wikipedia being from the US. Also, WP:BLP1E specifically says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Both of those exceptions to BLP1E clearly apply here. The affair has most likely ended the political career of a man who was, just a week and a half ago, one of the rising stars of the Republican Party and a likely Presidential candidate, and as the woman he was having the affair with she's obviously central to the event. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison between the two is inapt. Lewinsky inserted herself into the incident by saving evidence, and was in the news cycle for a couple of years, not a couple of days.  Further, the relative fame of Clinton and Sanford is extremely different.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong request to those who assert Shapur is notable outside the Sanford affair. PLEASE supply some evidence for this and add it to the article! So far, there is no claim that she was notable pre-affair in the article.    Grover cleveland (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * keep. She's interesting. This woman is interesting in her own right for having this important relationship. It may contribute to other historical events, and we'll wish we kept this original material on her life? — Newgreatyear (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * note: I posted the above for the redlink account who posted it here. It's Newgreatyear's only edit. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She's interesting? Not a valid argument.  She may contribute to other historical events?  That could be true of anyone.  The material that is valuable will remain, merged into the Sanford-related articles.  Grover cleveland (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * article keeps changing, which can affect delete/keep/merge opinions The article keeps changing. This may affect the delete/keep/merge opinions.  At first, the article was a 1-2 sentence stub and poorly written.  This encouraged the delete votes.  Then it was greatly improved.  This resulted in more keep votes.  Then some editors, some of which voted, took away parts of it.  This resulted in more delete or merge votes.  I fear that manipulation, even unintentional manipulation, affects the votes (even though AFD is not a vote, individuals DO vote).  The biggest change is that several photos have been removed.  Various reasons were given but the fact that the vote is changing with a correlation between deletionists taking things out to make the article smaller and non-photogenic resulting in more delete/merge votes (and more keep votes when the article is larger and more photogenic) is troubling because the deciding administrator is unlikely to see the version of the article present at the time each vote was made.


 * Again, I state no opinion, but am keep coming back to this article because of recent interest as per google (no hits before, now many) User F203 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. As a former fairly low-profile reporter, or as a divorced mother, she never would have had an article survive AFD. Sleeping with a Governor does not make someone notable by Wikipedia's standards. Edison (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mark_Sanford. If that section becomes too large, an article can be broken off (e.g. Mark Sanford extramarital affair).  But WP:1EVENT means there should not be an article on just Chapur. Superm401 - Talk 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Falls foul of WP:BLP1E.  If every mistress had a page, we would not be able to see the wood from the trees.   Ron h jones (Talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete A clear WP:BLP1E, about as clear as you can get. ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At least at this time, she is notable for her role in a significant political event that is still unfolding, and we have been told (albeit without enough corroboration at this time) that she is a significant Argentine journalist. Assuming we can get some increased information on her journalistic career, the fact that her notability takes place primarily outside of America does not diminish it. If supplemental biographical details including career details can't be produced, we can reconsider notability, but right now this smacks of American Ethnocentrism.--Eric Burns (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Her role in a significant political event? Her role was having sex with a guy who happened to be notable. That doesn't scream notability to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment "Maybe we can find some information about her previous unremarkable career, since we want to include lurid details of the one event?" See the essay WP:COATRACK for reasons this should not be our approach to a biography. Also, per WP:AGF, do not use attacks on the U.S.A. as a tactic in deletion debates. Edison (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree it is pretty much a WP:ONEVENT-- but, organizationally, I find it much better when you split-out the personal-stuff into a separate article (as has been done here).  Lets WP:IAR and keep-- with the name. Nephron  T|C 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, per WP:BLP1E. --Gary (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Time Magazine has named her one of the top ten mistresses of all time. At any rate, Wikipedia still has Monica Lewinsky's article.  For consistency, either both should be kept, or both should be deleted.  David Cannon (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, in less than a week she went from "Maria who?" to "Top 10 ever" over an affair with a governor that most of the country hadn't heard of 2 weeks ago. Can anyone say RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "details about her remain hazy". You'd think they could come up with something better than that for the "#1 mistress of all time" :)  Pathetic.  Grover cleveland (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just as notable as Rielle Hunter, Fawn Hall, and Donna Rice. Dems on the move (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no basis for delete? I have carefully considered this without voting to keep or delete. Because of the great interest in more than one country as evidenced by internet searches, merging/redirect is far better than delete.  Whether it should be merge/redirect or keep, I will take that under advisement. User F203 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only is she a former TV journalist (many of whom, differing in prominence, have articles of their own), but she also is involved in a major American political scandal that has been featured and exhaustively discussed by every major news outlet. If Wikipedia is to be the supposed "sum" or "resource" totalling the knowledge of the world, and if it is to be regarded as current, then articles such as this should remain. Miketanton (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some care must be made to respect this lady's privacy, and WP:BLP must be followed at all times, but as a central figure in something plastering the news in the US right now, she is a very notable person. We have enough WP:RS-worthy material describing her and her life which goes beyond just the current media attention on her.  Samboy (talk) 20:27, 2 July 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.