Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 11 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.

• Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur: Diplomacia Argentina en Naciones Unidas 1986-1990 (in Spanish). Vol. Volume 7. Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales. 2007. p. 260. Retrieved 5 February 2015. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

• Fernandez, Edith (3 March 2014). Malvinas. Su enseñanza de cara al futuro (in Spanish). Editorial Dunken. p. 43. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Balmaceda, Daniel (1 April 2011). Historias inesperadas de la historia argentina: Tragedias, misterios y delirios de nuestro pasado (in Spanish). Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Balmaceda, Daniel (1 September 2011). Historia de las palabras (in Spanish). Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Gott, Richard (1993). Land Without Evil: Utopian Journeys Across the South American Watershed. Verso. p. 143. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Pérez Calvo, Lucio Ricardo (2008). Norteamericanos en la Argentina (in Spanish). L.R. Pérez Calvo. p. 123. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Amuchástegui, Juan Manuel (2002). Volvamos a la democracia: Bases para la Argentina del Siglo XXI (in Spanish). Lectica Ediciones. p. 141. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Traba, Juan (1983). Las Malvinas: Pasado, Presente, Porvenir (in Spanish). J. Traba. p. 18. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• da Fonseca Figueira, José Antonio (1978). Cómo los poetas les cantaron a las Malvinas (in Spanish). Plus Ultra. p. 40. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Lasserre, Augusto (2006). José Hernández y las Malvinas Argentinas: La relación del escritor con nuestras islas y los detalles que de su viaje por ellas le comunicara en 1869 (in Spanish). pp. 14–17. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Cawkell, Mary (2001). The History of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Guglielmino, Osvaldo (1985). Perón, Jauretche y revisionismo cultural (in Spanish). Ediciones Temática. p. 25. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Pueyrredón, Victoria (2003). Mis reportajes (in Spanish). Grupo Editorial Lumen. p. 285. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Cresto, Juan José (1 January 1999). El Barrio de San Nicolás: Breve historia del Centro de Buenos Aires (in Spanish). Fundación BankBoston. p. 120. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• López, Horacio Alberto (1 January 2002). Puerto Luis: La Tercera Invasión Inglesa (in Spanish). Ediciones Instituto Movilizador de Fondos Cooperativos. p. 41. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Daus, Federico A.; Rey Balmaceda, Raúl C. (1982). Islas Malvinas (in Spanish). OIKOS Asociación para la Promoción de los Estudios Territoriales y Ambientales. p. 128. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Cócaro, Nicolás; Cócaro, Emilio Eduardo (1989). Islas Malvinas (in Spanish). Fundación Banco de Boston. p. 186. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Guglielmino, Osvaldo (1990). Americanismo y peronismo: (Expresión de una cultura libre) (in Spanish). Ediciones Notícias Ilustradas. p. 94. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Piñeiro, Armando Alonso (1981). Cronología histórica argentina (in Spanish). Ediciones Depalma. p. 55. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Llanes, Ricardo M. (1976). Historia de la calle Florida (in Spanish). Honorable Sala de Representantes de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Montarcé Lastra, Antonio; Sáez de Vernet, María (1946). Redención de la soberanía: Las Malvinas y el diario de doña María Sáez de Vernet (in Spanish). Padilla y Contreras. p. 156. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Sosa de Newton, Lily (1986). Diccionario biográfico de mujeres argentinas: aumentado y actualizado (in Spanish). Plus Ultra. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

• Herrera-Vegas, Diego Jorge; Jáuregui Rueda, Carlos (1 January 2006). Familias argentinas (in Spanish). Vol. Volume 2. Ediciones Callao 1823. Retrieved 5 February 2015. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

--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)

...And I'm expanding the list again on the grounds that a) refactoring other editors' comments without their permission is rude (see WP:TPO) and b) this discussion is about sources; hiding them is unhelpful.

I've checked every one of them and Malvina/Matilde is indeed mentioned (just search for "hija" --Spanish for daughter), with the possible exception of 2 of them: Amuchástegui and Daus & Rey Balmaceda. You'll see for example that Matilde Vernet is mentioned in p.260 of that first source. Please look carefully, and remember that one mistake doesn't automatically invalidate the remaining sources. --Langus (t) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Please do not edit the comments of other people. As per WP:TPO, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I never gave my permission and you never asked for it either; therefore I expect an apology.

You are also incorrect regarding the first source:

@Langus-TxT: Amuchástegui mentions her on page 260: Daus and Rey Balmaceda refer to her on page 128: . --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've collapsed the list again, I didn't edit or delete his comment Langus I collapsed a list to make the page more readable, please refrain making non-constructive personal accusations and wikilawyering. As to demanding an apology OneEuropeanHeart, really?. The point remains that this person is only known for being the daughter of Luis Vernet not for anything she personally did to be notable, she wasn't as claimed the first child born in the islands. This person is not notable in her own right. (Emphasis added) And the fact remains that many hits in the list and in google books are false positives stemming from the confusion of "Malvinas" the spanish name for the Falklands and "Vernet" her father. WCM_email 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I will repeat myself, stop editing the comments of other people. WP:TPO states that the use of {{collapse top}}, {{collapse bottom}}, and similar templates is only allowed in case of off-topic posts, which clearly is not the case here. Further, as per WP:TPNO altering others' comments is considered "unacceptable behavior", and "violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Misplaced Pages". I am not going to tolerate this again.

Misplaced Pages's policy states that people are presumed notable if they have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Whether or not Matilde Vernet y Sáez was notable for something she personally did is thoroughly irrelevant; that is not what notability means in Misplaced Pages terms.

Lastly, you continue to claim many hits in the list above are false positives, yet you have not provided a single link to back that up. One has to wonder why. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cough, , cough.

This is really simple, just because she is mentioned as the daughter of Luis Vernet doesn't make her notable, she has to be notable in her own right. This isn't "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Nor is your case going to be helped by dominating this discussion and making personal attacks. Have your list if you insist but really its not helping you make your case and if you really feel that I have behaved inappropriately I suggest you refer this to WP:ANI. Would you also please stop pinging me, its irritating and I really would request you allow other editors to comment. WCM_email 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you are mentioning a link that has been addressed before. You claimed that said link was a false positive, and I have already proved it was not.

Second of all, you are stating that this isn't "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". The list above proves the complete opposite.

Third of all, you are now claiming that I am making personal attacks. Pray tell, which sentence or paragraph of my comment was a personal attack?

I will stop pinging you from now on since it is irritating to you. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been through OneEuropeanHeart's sources, and my conclusion that this individual does not meet the standard is unaltered.

The point is that "significant coverage" is not just some meaningless term that can be safely ignored here. While the subject does not have to be the "main topic" of the book, we do need evidence of "more than a trivial mention" and that the subject is addressed "directly and in detail". Moreover, we can only go on what we know the source says, not what it might say if we could see it. We can't base this on ifs and buts and maybes. We need evidence.

Of the 23 sources listed, 3 do not have any text available at all, meaning that it is impossible to verify the existence of significant coverage. A further 16 are only available in Google's snippet view, which means that the data available is so limited - generally no more than a single sentence fragment, shorn of all context - that it is impossible to confirm that anything more than trivial coverage exists (if even that exists - that is not clear in some of the listed sources), far less to actually extract meaningful content for an article. Where an individual is mentioned, it is not necessarily even clear that it is the subject of the article and not e.g. her daughter.

And of the remaining 4 sources, none give more than trivial coverage. This one mentions her name and gives a photograph, but gives no other coverage. This one mentions her existence and comments on her name, but gives no other coverage. This one discusses the etymology of the word "Malvina" and comments on her name, but gives no other coverage. This one mentions her existence in a footnote and refers to her father and husband, but gives no other coverage. There is nothing here to build an article on. Not a single one of these sources reaches the standard of "significant coverage". None of them, to our knowledge, addresses the subject "directly and in detail".

For all that grand list that OneEuropeanHeart insists must take up all that room in the AFD, the fact remains that there is no evidence has been produced that this individual has received significant coverage in reliable sources. We have no evidence that she meets our notability rules so the article should be deleted. Kahastok talk 23:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The guideline also says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I'd think than more than 100 books and several academic papers would be enough to convince anyone.

Moreover, Malvina/Matilde Vernet is the central topic in many news and magazines articles, e.g. . What other way would we know that she was at the Ford's Theatre the night of Lincon's assassination? Or that she was very popular in San Isidro's social circles, exactly for being the only Argentine born in the FI? --Langus (t) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability - i cant see anything in the article that shows her being notable, having or using a nickname or being the daughter of a governor dont pass the bar. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @MilborneOne: Article is not finished. You do not consider it. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: I dont have a crystal ball I can only comment on the article as nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, I know. I am not active editor in English Misplaced Pages, but yes I am in the Spanish version. I propose someone to finish the translation before deciding. Because with a couple of lines "don't work". --Gastón Cuello (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @@Gastón Cuello: Gaston if you're translating the Spanish article it would be a waste of your time. There is very little content there relevant to this person, mainly its filled with reference to Argentina's sovereignty claim. Its what is referred to on English wikipedia as a WP:COATRACK. The person simply isn't notable. You know I've helped you with other biographical articles and I would do so here were it a notable person. Regards, WCM_email 08:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I find WCM's allegation of the article being a WP:COATRACK ridiculous. The person is notable (i.e. she has received significant cover) for being related to the sovereignty dispute, but that doesn't mean that her biography would actually be about the sovereignty claim. That depends entirely on the article's content. The premature classification is incorrect. --Langus (t) 13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @MilborneOne:, have you read WP:BIO? Assessing notability in Misplaced Pages shouldn't be done the way you're doing it. --Langus (t) 13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Notability neither granted by inheritance or established by passing mentions (as is frequently the case with relatives of important people). - Are any of those sources specifically about her? If not, then notability is not established. (If the passionate defenders here put a tenth of that passion into improving the article, it might stand.) Pax 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just as there are passionate advocates, there are also passionate accusers. Remember this. In March see the article in Spanish. I'm going to expand. Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, there are: . They may not be entire volumes about her, but are enough confirm notability. As to the sharp remark, I'll share with you my personal situation: I can't afford to devote hours to this (remember, I'm not a native speaker, plus British warriors here will make it a hard task) only to see it vanished in an instant, victim of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In any case, I commit myself to do so when this ends. But from your vote and the one above, I can see where this is heading: it's been 16 days since its nomination, and it's clear to me that the reason why this was left to live that much is because a final negative vote was lacking. This will soon be closed by a sympathetic admin. --Langus (t) 20:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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