Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 5 February 2015

Matilde Vernet y Sáez

Matilde Vernet y Sáez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. I can't see this ever being more than a stub. WCM_email 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The counterpart at the Spanish Misplaced Pages both shows that the person is notable, and that this article has potential to become more than a stub. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• A translation of the Spanish article. It repeats the false claim that was added to this article (even though correctly referring to the first birth in the French settlement) and is nothing more than commentary on Argentina's sovereignty claim not this person. WCM_email 14:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think the Spanish Misplaced Pages article is "nothing more than a commentary on Argentina's sovereignty claim" as her connection to the Argentine position is only addressed in the last section and barely mentioned in the lead; the rest of the article is exclusively devoted to her life. Moreover, whether or not it's true that she was the first person born in the islands is completely irrelevant as far as Misplaced Pages's deletion policy is concerned since you cannot delete an article just because a small portion of it is incorrect; I reckon half of the articles in Misplaced Pages would be removed if that were the case. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My comment relates to the requirement for notability, she is claimed to be the first, she isn't, as such the hook for notability per guidelines is not fulfilled. And as regards the Spanish article, like many Spanish language articles related to the Falklands its dominated by Argentine sovereignty claim. That was my only reason for commenting, if you think differently I must admit I am surprised at your conclusions but you are entitled to a different opinion. WCM_email 17:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. As OneEuropeanHeart noted above, the reason why a person is notable is not a valid argument for deletion (i.e. the reason being allegedly false). I quote from WP:BIO: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

In proving this, the Find sources link above is incorrect, as she's more commonly referred to as "Malvina":

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It may not seem much but compared to Antonina Roxa (an article created by WCM and defended against deletion here) it yields much more results:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I vouched for that article at that time and I stand by this one for the same reason. --Langus (t) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Antonina Roxa is notable for a role in the early history of the Falkland Islands, that she is not well-known outside of that field is irrelevant, she is notable for the role she played. Matilde Vernet y Sáez was simply born there but played no role. Regards, WCM_email 11:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what notable means in the context of WP:BIO; hence, what it means to Misplaced Pages. --Langus (t) 20:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Article makes no claim to notability. Any notability that might be said to exist is inherited from her father. I would agree with WCM's assertion that the Spanish-language article is primarily related to the sovereignty dispute and of the rest there is little that could not be said of almost any 94-year-old woman of her era. Langus' argument amounts to a combination of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GHITS, note that he cites no sources that would demonstrate that the notability criteria are met. Kahastok talk 19:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You're positively wrong Kahastok, I provided this: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Those are hyperlinks and I expected editors to click on them, specially if they're going to cast a vote. --Langus (t) 21:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional hyperlinks, they're useful. However, it should be noted that the original one the template adds shows zero hits. Yours:

News: 7 Results (Articles on Argentina's sovereignty claim)

Newspapers: 0 Hits

Books: 102 Hits, including a work of fiction casting a love story involving Malvina Vernet, letters by the Cilley family, most are books on Argentina's sovereignty claim

Scholar: 6 hits (Largely articles on Argentina's sovereignty claim)

JSTOR: 0 Hits

This re-inforces the point that in Misplaced Pages terms this person is not notable. Aside from the incorrect claim made that she was the first person born on the islands, there is nothing to note notability. I would suggest that your presumption a user had not checked the links you provided is a demonstration of a lack of good faith and you should separate passionate nationalism from a discussion on a deletion proposal. Regards, WCM_email 11:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your implication that Langus's comment was motivated by passionate nationalism was uncalled for, even more so after you yourself mentioned WP:AGF, which explicitly states, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it", and "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Furthermore, I cannot help but notice that you are rejecting references simply because they are related to the Argentine position, which is a specious argument as it doesn't refute their validity in asserting the notability of the article. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I note your comments and thank you for your feedback. Let me assure you that reference to patriotism is a recognition that everyone has their own inherent POV not a presumption that they have harmful motives. Please refrain from accusing me of rejecting sources, I have at no point done so, I pointed out that they do not establish the notability of this individual. WCM_email 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When I ask for sources, I mean I want sources. Not links to WP:GHITS or arguments based on numbers of Google hits. I find that you fail to rebut my point. You have yet to provide any sources that would demonstrate that the notability criteria are met. Kahastok talk 13:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:GHITS states that a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion; however, it makes an exception with respect to those coming from Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, which is what Langus also provided. I quote: "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kahastok: If you want sources, see the article in Spanish. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The text you cite does not state, suggest or imply that a large number of hits on a search of Google Books, Google Scholar or Google News guarantees notability as you claim. It makes it more likely, maybe (though in this case, the number is not particularly large in any case) - but only because it makes it more likely that between those sources it will be possible to meet the notability guideline. The number alone means nothing. It's the sources that matter. I've asked for the specific sources and, surprisingly, neither you nor Langus seem willing to cite any.

And don't forget that the argument was that this lady is notable on the basis that a search term related to her has more hits than a different search term related to an existing article.

As to Gastón's point, my previous comments on the Spanish article still apply. Kahastok talk 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your objection regarding the Spanish article is spurious for two reasons: firstly, the fact that part of its information is related to the sovereignty dispute doesn't reduce the notability of this person in any way, shape, or form; and secondly, as it has been mentioned above, her connection to the Argentine position is only addressed in the last section and barely mentioned in the lead, whilst the rest of the article is exclusively devoted to her life. As for your other argument, I have taken the liberty to compile a list of specific references that patently demonstrates that the subject of the article has received "significant coverage in secondary sources" as Misplaced Pages's policy states.

--OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You might care to note that careless use of search terms produces misleading results. Eg in the first source this individual isn't mentioned. Its brought up by "Malvinas" and the fact Luis Vernet (her father) founded a settlement on the islands. I've collapsed the list to avoid cluttering the discussion. Please be more careful and I invite you to consider allowing other people to comment. WCM_email 21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates