Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is that she does not meet the criteria for inclusion - the one claim (that she was the first person born in the Falkland Islands) is claimed to be false, and there are no other claims to notability mentioned or established; the commentators also mention the lack of reliable, independent sources.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Matilde Vernet y Sáez
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None notable person. Regularly claimed to be the first person born in the Falkland Islands, this claim is untrue as children are recorded in the French settlement, and a British child was born on the islands in 1811. Only really known at all because of her father. Previously deletion discussion here. This new version is lifted directly from the Spanish wikipedia and is padded out with a lot of unrelated material, a lot of it fails WP:NPOV. Please note also the use of Kelpers, this is usually considered a racist pejorative by the islanders when used in this context. WCM email 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous discussion. To be clear, this is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD.


 * As noted last time around, the principle claim of notability - that she was the first person born on the islands - is false. Other than her parentage there is nothing about the subject that would make her notable over any other woman of the era who lived to 94 years.  She lived, she married, she had children.  If people hadn't done that in the nineteenth century, none of us would be here.  There are a lot of sources, but few if any are accessible and the reliability seems debatable at best.  Seriously, we have factual claims that appear to be sourced to poetry.


 * The real aim of the article - the whole point in having an article - is to promote the Argentine POV in the sovereignty dispute. It was last time and it is this time.  And - let's be clear - that's also the purpose it serves on the Spanish Wikipedia, which has always taken a radically pro-Argentine editorial line on Falklands issues. Kahastok talk 22:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I went through a long list of claimed sources in the last AfD. Basically, either it was impossible to judge the level of coverage (because the sources were unavailable or only available in Google snippet view) or it was clear that the coverage was not significant.  By the looks of things, the sources claimed here are the same ones, and so those points still apply. Kahastok talk 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as pointed out, the basis on which notability is claimed here is demonstrably false. The sources by the look of it are almost exclusively Argentine propaganda and couldn't be considered reliable by any stretch of the imagination.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep Hi, I had some problems with references, but I could fix it. The reason why I decided to translate this article and some others in the future is because I was looking for information of Matilde in English but I saw It's virtually nonexistent, (that's why I copied the references of the original article too). So I thought: If an Spanish article does exist, ¿why it does't in English? I regrettably did't find many English sources about her, and my thinking is that it is unfair that only Spanish speakers can access to that information. So, I think that delete the article is maybe a bit extreme. It would be better to look more sources, or try translating more information from books or any source.

Sorry if my English is bad, I'm still learning, I tried to be as clear as I could. Regards Javier Ignacio Caballero (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By any standard on wikipedia, that article was appalling. In the lede alone I have removed a dozen WP:SPS and the article violates WP:NPOV in numerous places - eg by repeating the expulsion myth.  The simple fact is this person doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE standards, which is why the first time it was added it was deleted.  We can't do anything about the standard on es.wiki but we can maintain them here.  WCM email 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. I think these problems can be solved on future editions (WP:SPS & WP:NPOV). I can change the conflictive parts. Always being objective (Consider I just made an exact copy of the spanish article)
 * About WP:NOTABLE I think it's debatable, many books and online sources that mention her or her family can be found. As I said, it's better to fix than to eliminate.
 * I've been reading related articles and curiously there isn't any reference about her or about people who were born and lived on the islands before 1833. To skip information isn't very neutral.Javier Ignacio Caballero (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? You can't have looked very hard, I've written five myself.  Did I hear a quack? WCM email 00:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are several articles about people who lived on the islands pre-1833 - actually a relatively large proportion of the population, which was never more than a few dozen in this period - but these are people who meet our standard of notability. But we shouldn't have articles on everyone who lived on the islands at that time, and I don't see that the colony leader's daughter should get an article solely by virtue of being the colony leader's daughter.  Yes, she will get mentions in texts, but the standard is higher than that.  We need significant coverage.  There's no evidence that that exists.


 * That the article may be poorly written is beside the point (it can be improved). That it is biased is beside the point (it can be made neutral).  That this lady does not meet our standards for inclusion in her own right, and that the article in English (just as in Spanish) is and always will be a WP:COATRACK for Argentine sovereignty claims - because there's nothing else to put in it - is the key point, and why this article should be deleted. Kahastok talk 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notalbe person and a lack of strong RS to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still nothing noticeably convincing, examining the article found nothing particularly convincing and I'm not confident there are any actual ample improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable and my searches found nowhere near enough reliable coverage to meet GNG.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, not enough good-quality third party coverage. She's mentioned a lot, but as a footnote in a far bigger story; she doesn't appear to have actually done anything to merit inclusion in her own right, and once the spurious claim to fame is discounted, the article makes no attempt to even suggest why she might be notable.  Fosse   8►  15:53, 14 June 2016 (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.