Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomás Matos


 * 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. Consensus is we don't have SIG COV required. Star  Mississippi  02:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Tomás Matos

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of an actor and dancer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, performers are not automatically notable just because they've had roles -- the notability test requires the performer to pass WP:GNG through sources that pay analytical attention to the significance of said roles, not just basic verification that roles have been had. But the performances listed here are all supporting or ensemble parts, not leading roles, and of the five footnotes, three just briefly namecheck Tomás Matos's existence in articles that aren't about Tomás Matos in any non-trivial way, while another is a Q&A interview in which Tomás Matos is talking about themself in the first person in a limited-circulation online magazine, meaning none of those help to establish passage of WP:GNG at all -- and the only source that actually devotes any significant attention to Tomás Matos features one blurb's worth of information in a collective profile of a group of young actors, which is certainly a start down the right path but doesn't clinch notability all by itself if it's the only source that actually counts for something. Also, this was created yesterday and then immediately incubated in draftspace by an established editor who correctly evaluated the sourcing as not good enough, only to then have the article creator arbitrarily move it back to mainspace again this morning without actually improving the sourcing one bit. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Tomás Matos from having to be the subject of quite a bit more than just one short blurb in a legitimate source. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep "only to then have the article creator arbitrarily move it back to mainspace again this morning without actually improving the sourcing one bit." For starters, that is an outright, baldfaced, and unnecessary lie (why would you do this??). The article was given two new sources before being returned to the main article space. And the sources for the article include in-depth discussion of the subject in the New York Times (twice) and in NBC News (once) among a number of others.  It did not qualify as draftible per WP:DRAFTIFY in the first place (please review that policy and point out specifically where I am wrong on this point), and never should have been moved there.  I encourage any editor to have a look for sources and verify this for themselves.  The subject has not met WP:CREATIVE, I agree, but that guideline is meant to provide guidance on articles that might deserve including in Wikipedia if they do fail to meet WP:GNG, not on which articles to exclude if they don't.  If a person has been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources, as here, then the WP:GNG has been met and we don't even have to look at WP:CREATIVE.  You would have to argue that the subject did not meet WP:GNG and didn't even meet WP:CREATIVE, not the other way around.  The complaint that three of the sources given aren't "about Matos in a non-trivial way"-- what?? In one of the TWO New York Times articles mentioned he is the subject of an an entire section of text, one of four people discussed there and every one of them likely deserving a Wikipedia article based on that news piece alone. My fear now, though, is that no one will step up and oppose the nominator because of his illustrious career as a Wikipedia editor.  It is obvious to me that a mistake has been made.  I wonder if no one else will agree with me on this. A loose necktie (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks the level of roles that would lead to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Subject also doesn't meet the criteria outlined at WP:MUSIC, WP:FILMS, WP:NGEO, or WP:NFOOTY. Can someone remind me why no one cares?  What did I just say?   A loose necktie (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment The New York Times is paywalled so I can't evaluate it, the rest appear to be tangential/mentioned in passing. Mr. Necktie above should refrain from personal attacks unrelated to the discussion at hand. I wasn't aware that the NP:footy applied here, he seems even less notable if he has played soccer, I find nothing to support that statement either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I was joking about those. Am not sure what was seen as a personal attack(?) unrelated to the discussion at hand.  A loose necktie (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nom. The sources barely namecheck the subject. Here's a quick summary:
 * NYT article about dancing on broadway: Paywalled, but just one of four subjects covered
 * Attitude: His name appears in two captions on two photos. There is no sigcov whatsoever.
 * NYT article about Diana: Paywalled
 * UPI: Mentioned once; no sigcov
 * NBC: States the subject is an "ensemble member" of the Diana cast and does not give a named part
 * MixedMag: Interview.
 * Unfortunately, I just think it's too soon for this performer. None of the preceding sources are in depth/sigcov from what I can tell. If there is continued coverage going forward and the subject's career continues to build, coverage will follow. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2022 (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.