Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina Orfanou


 * 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. I note that any controversial material has now been removed. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mina Orfanou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced BLP containing controversial information. No sourced assertion of notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sources in Greek entertainment publications indicating notability, and indicate the transgender information is probably accurate (although further sourcing is a good idea). Meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editors should not be citing Google translations of sources. "Born a boy" could be a mistranslation- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 00:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be retained or deleted, but I do see a pretty significant problem in including some of the information previously included in the article on the basis of machine translated versions of foreign sources. If the information is accurate and can be reliably sourced, please feel free to readd it, but I see a significant BLP issue in including such information based on machine translated articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I revamped the article before, and would not have added the transgender information if I felt it was not valid. But to be safe, we can exclude this information, but we must keep the references; please do not delete references particularly when an article is up for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I don't intend to bother deleting the references, it does make the article a little bit silly to stack eight references for the one initial claim. If you'd like to use references to argue that someone meets the GNG, it's perfectly fine just to include them in the AfD discussion - it doesn't harm the strength of the keep claim for the references not to be included in the article at the time a keep vote is made. What matters is the existence of references far more than whether or not they are included in the article during an AfD - and what is assessed by a closing admin will be the quality of the arguments in the AfD discussion far more than the current state of the article. Please do not try to include potentially contentious information based on a machine translated version of an article that was originally written in a language you do not speak on this article or elsewhere though; machine translations can and frequently do result in serious ambiguities or misunderstandings of the originally cited sources, and aren't appropriate to use in a BLP for any claim that is possibly remotely controversial or contentious. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining; I somewhat agree about not using google translate, yes there can be inaccuracies, but my sense was from revamping the article, examining sources, that the overall picture of a transgendered person was correct. About piling more references into the article as opposed to merely listing them in the AfD debate -- from my experience, my sense is that many closing admins do not slog through much of the AfD debate, but rather, go straight to the article, assess the references for themselves, and then decide. When this happens, it is highly important to have the references within the article itself. Imagine the article is like a person being sent to the guillotine, and the references are like letters from well-wishers, trying to persuade the judges to spare the person; shouldn't eight references be preferred to three? We can even try an experiment; if the closing admin actually reads this comment, could he or she mention the word Betelgeuse in the closing summary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Evaluated this for closing, decided it wasn't ready, decided to participate instead. But Betelgeuse.  ;-)  --j⚛e deckertalk 04:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. After checking news results for her name in Greek, the coverage of Mina seems sufficient to presume notability. It would be good to get verification from someone who can read Greek, but sources like this and these seem legit enough. The claim of her being a trans woman also seems correct. I was editing from mobile earlier so I wasn't able to check thoroughly. -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I too am dealing with automated translation, but as I dig through source after source after source, some of those appear to be significant coverage in reliable (for entertainment figures) sources providing reliable coverage. I think it's fair to exercise caution with the claims regarding the subject being trans, even I suspect the claim is almost certainly accurate based on what I've read through translation in Greek *and* French sources, and the implications of, and the direct transliteration of mention of her participation in a pride parade sourced at  saying, in part, "τρανσέξουαλ ηθοποιός Μίνα Ορφανού", my own knowledge of the Greek alphabet makes τρανσέξουαλ being directly translated as transgender as well as being a clear cognate (tau = t, rho = r, etc.), and ηθοποιός meaning actress according to my dictionary, Wiktionary and Gtranslate.  Finally, I would argue against "fixing" the overcitation--someone who can read Greek may be able to do a more reliable job of re-expanding the stub from provided sources, and there's not much text here for the overcitation to distract from. By rule, sure, we'd kill 'em, but as a practical matter, I think this is a fair case for leaving them be.  --j⚛e deckertalk 04:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The unsourced or even explained statements in categories without any corresponding information in the text should not stand. This is a clear BLP violation that needs to be removed immidiately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep, until someone who can read Greek has a look at the sources and verifies that they say, broadly, what the machine translation says. I too am quite uncomfortable on basing notability claims on machine translated sources, especially potentially libelous or extraordinary claims.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep: notable actress, notable role. Article needs expansion though, the sources imply that the article should be bigger. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (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.