Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Valdez


 * 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. We do not accept unsourced WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  06:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wendy Valdez

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability. Unable to find wp:rs to satisfy wp:creative. Note failed speedy long ago. Ariconte (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would be useful if the nominator could explain how the hundred or so sources found by the Google News archive search linked in the nomination don't satisfy the general notability guideline. Are they unreliable, non-independent or do they not amount to significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. I didn't find sources there to satisfy points 1 to 4 of wp:creative for the model / actress.... Many of the articles found are for other people in NY, Sacramento, etc. I did not think the articles on this person amounted to significant coverage about her. Possibly wp:42 should have been mentioned. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just being a contestant on BB doesn't do it, nor does a list of guest appearences and minors roles. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep Google News search results return several reliable sources dated only a few days ago mentioning her, this is taking into account that Google News search has notoriously poor coverage of non-American (and non-English) news sites. Most regular Google search results are obscured by the hundreds of Filipino gossip sites, but I'm sure enough reliable sources can be found of her with a little effort. I found some in a few minutes of digging: Manila Bulletin, ABS-CBN News, ABS-CBN, Manila Standard Today, Philippine Entertainment Portal, FHM, GMA News, etc. Some are not in English. Try adding the keywords 'GMA' and 'ABS-CBN' (the two largest TV networks in the Philippines) in the search box.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google News currently does not have "notoriously poor coverage" of at least news in the Philippines. Considering only English sources in the Philippines are good enough for WP:RS means that they have extensive coverage. What's wrong here is link rot -- news sites (not entirely restricted to the Philippines -- don't archive their articles. Fortunately, most major Philippine news websites don't delete old articles, and they can be accessed at Google News; if those don't have articles with in-depth articles about this person, then you can't look elsewhere. – H T  D  04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno, based on my experiences they do. But then again, that probably has something to do with the fact that news sources here went online a bit late. Anyway, you know who she is, do you consider her notable?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete until such time as anyone can provide any significant coverage in secondary sources. I would have thought that this was obvious. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  collectorate  ─╢ 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let's start with the fact that this is an unsourced BLP and take it from there... Carrite (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources provided by Obsidian Soul appear to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. While a couple of them may be questionable with respect to independence (ABS-CBN runs PBB), I'd guess that MB, MST are independent. I'm open to data on that point, though. --joe deckertalk to me 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still unsourced BLP. Lots of folks talking about sources, nobody's adding them to pagespace. I agree that sources can be found, in English, with no difficulty. However, everything I saw was WP:ROUTINE television entertainment coverage. Everything presented by User:Obsidian Soul met the same description. Everything I saw in other languages looked the same. Nothing directly detailing. Nothing rising to the standard of WP:IRS: "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." BusterD (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Er... I think you misunderstand what WP:ROUTINE is. You're saying so because of the mention of wedding announcements as an example, yeah? When a neighbor is getting married and publishes the announcement in the paper, it's WP:ROUTINE. When a paper publishes an announcement of a football game next Sunday at this and that, it's WP:ROUTINE. Winners of the pie-eating contest and the sack race in the last town celebration is WP:ROUTINE. A list of people who passed last week's licensure exam is WP:ROUTINE. Common, brief, light.


 * Coverage of marriage failures, television roles, being listed in Philippine FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2011, a walk-out scandal, winning a place in a national-level high-profile beauty pageant (the actual winner of this represents the Philippines in Miss Universe), signing a TV contract, an abrupt ending to her TV series, etc. is not routine. Sure they're not that in-depth, but the sheer number of sources should already give you a pretty good idea of how notable she is. At the risk of doing WP:OTHERSTUFF, people like Paris Hilton base their notability on things like this. Valdez is an actress (with lead roles, not just supporting ones) and a former beauty queen. We don't need to know her favorite color or the name of the elementary school she went to. I don't even watch any of her shows and I won't actually be bothered if it ends up getting deleted lol. Just speaking up because even if I haven't watched TV for years, I recognized her name, and I suspect this whole deletion thing is merely a manifestation of WP:WORLDVIEW or maybe people just look at the 'Big Brother' thing and pass judgement immediately.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If User:Obsidian Soul feels so strongly about these sources, I'm wondering why the editor isn't putting some into pagespace? Over three weeks at AfD and the BLP is as yet wholly unsourced. IMHO, the coverage I'm reading ranks somewhere between program listings and tabloid journalism, so I'm still satisfied with my assessment of the sources as defined by WP:ROUTINE. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I'm currently working on Drynaria, Drynaria fortunei, Siebenrockiella leytensis, Cleome rutidosperma, Drynaria quercifolia, and have been invited to help as well with Paederus. Haven't seen it until a week ago, and was working on Timema, Palaeontinidae, and Snowmastodon site back then. That a good enough reason for you? I ask you the same thing. The text in that article is short enough. Remove the unverifiable stuff, source the rest instead of deleting everything unfamiliar for you. Don't ever imply that I'm lazy, kthxbye.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:21, 30 July 2011 (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.