Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inés Sainz

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The result was Keep; nomination withdrawn--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Sainz

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

~~I'm nominating this article for deletion, because I believe it violates WP:ONEEVENT~~ Truthsort (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn The article has been improved by User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden and establishes notability. Truthsort (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment the only content I found published prior to the recent highly publicized potential allegation of being the victim of inappropriate sexual atmosphere WP:BLP1E was a publicity stunt (arm wrestling match) for the TV station she works for which would hardly count as a notable activity.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a Mexican reporter would do fluff pieces about American sport that is little known in Mexico in order to interest their viewers in a player with a Mexican background is not surprising.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that fluff promotional pieces are simply fluff promotional appearances and the fluff promotional piece she is associated with is not one that has made notice for its impact on the audience or the television station/product it was promoting or for its originality or anything other than simply having happened. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Compare the Wiki articles for Sainz's Mexican female sports reporting colleagues Ines Gomez Mont, Montserrat Olivier, and no doubt a whole slew of other Spanish-language only personalities. Indeed, Wp:BIAS says to counter institutional--in this case, English-language--bias is such cases as these, where the subjects are patently notable--such as in Sainz's case for having hosted her own Spanish-language show, obviously available in this day and age throughout the English-speaking world as well, that has done such "media stunts"/offered coverage of sports events from around the world for a decade, with there being plenty of media mentions of Sainz from throughout this period, with a sufficient number of them being in the English language.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pretty sure WP:BIAS does NOT say "ignore WP:BLP so that you can have 'equality' by having crappy sleaze based articles about content from the non-English speaking world." Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole part about the Jets incident is no longer in the article so there's not BLP incident to speak of.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not argue that just because other articles exist, mean that this one should as well. Pointing out that another article on the same subject exists does not confirm that the article in question should also be kept. Quite frankly, it is possible that the other articles you cited should also be deleted. It is just that the article does not get a lot of traffic and goes unrecognized. Truthsort (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Actually, it was in the article at the time you wrote that. You removed it immediately afterwards. I have avoided editing that article myself because of my lack of interest in the topic and, quite frankly, because your edits appear to me to be more than a little trollish. I hope you can explain why you believe that someone named "DJ Mick" is her official agent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DC: In response to others' undue weight concerns I removed that aspect of the article, thinking the same would please their editorial sensibilities. You comment makes me want to stop working on Wikipedia. As for her agency, I had originally been using an infobox template that had a space for "agency"; then I switched to one that used "agent." I'm sorry that you are so negative and, frankly, unwelcoming toward others' good faith efforts to create and continue to work on Wikipedia articles. My god, do you really take personal interest in whether her Wiki bio stays/goes? (smiles)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain how you thought that "DJ Mick" constitutes an "agency"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB, I've been the lone author of this article for a number of days now, after I turned it from a redirect into a stub. And you come along and, in reference to a single edit, impugn my motives. As to whether the photo agency is a modeling agency, for all I know you are right. But even if I made a mistake in good faith (which I'm not convinced I have as of yet), your attack of my integrity and value to the project [hurt and] angered me. I'm taking a break for a bit to cool off. "Troll" in the internet world is a fighting word: by definition, something that, for example, said in a pub/bar, could get a bloke/dude decked.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "CB"? If you are you addressing me, I would hope that if we were in a pub/bar you would invite me to discuss this over a drink rather than attempting to assault me. Here is your chance to make yourself seem less trollish to me - what makes you think that "DJ Mick" is any kind of agency and has any association with Sainz? Here is the website link you added as an official site, to refresh your memory. Please try to come up with a plausible answer because I am very close to asking to a topic ban for you on BLPs based on this episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah: You. (CarBuncle?) Sorry. This is a wiki and it gets rough in the give and take sometimes, I suppose. When you first walked in this establishment, the first thing out of your mouth was to essentially call me a liar because I'd commented here immediately prior to deleting the UNDUE section in the article. Was that a faux pas? I'm not going to look through the guidelines for it because I simply don't think it exists. In other words I'm calling you straight-up a troll in making that your introduction to me. Speaking of faux pas (or whatever its plural is), ironically, I've already RE-reviewed the Brit photos website and found it not any kind of agency whatsoever and deleted its being credited in the infobox prior your coming back here to again hurl your questions about the matter. Since I imagine you are following the article, what other reason would you have to continue to push the matter than to engage in non-droll trollery? Incidentally, I got the url to the pix site from their being thanked by name by Jimmy Trainer at SI.com (Sp./Illus.), after which I'd glanced at it for a millisecond, that is, long enough to get the wrong impression that it was some kind of entity in a contractual relationship with Ms. Sainz, and then I'd quickly added its name to the agency blank in the template:infobox model I'd originally been working with.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think trying to label me a troll is going to get any traction here. The agency link was removed by you after I first asked about it, but you left it in the infobox as an official website (later removed by ActiveBanana). Your excuse for adding it appears to amount to not having looked at the site carefully, which is hard to believe from even the most cursory viewing of that site and does not meet the level of care required for working on BLPs. If you voluntarily pledge to stay away from BLPs in the future, I will be happy to drop this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Ya label me a troll--not once but twice; then, when I do the old one-two, "I know you are but what am I?" you start saying that I'm taunting you as a troll? Gettouddaheah! lol (2) . . . In any case, I think somehow we've come to be inappropriately discussing article content Q's in the wrong forum of an AfD.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While she became infamous for the one event, I think she was notable prior to that for her reporting and other work. As well, BLP1E specifies that the person must otherwise be trying to lead a private life, and she most certainly is not attempting to stay otherwise private. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Her TV appearances before the recent todo might have generated sufficient coverage to show notability, but the bloggy refs presently attached to the article do not rise to multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Someone fluent in Spanish might be able to find adequate references to show that her notability preceded the one locker-room incident. Edison (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article should include information from Spanish Wikipedia, her work on tv, etc.John KB (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the spanish wikipedia is hardly different that what is in the english article. Sorry, but that is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Truthsort (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references to reliable sources are sufficient to show notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of two references, the sources being used are about the jets interview or the super bowl. There needs to be a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that address the subject directly in detail. Truthsort (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guarding against provinciality through countering institutional bias, mentioned above, we find that wp:NONENG sources count for notability, as well. And the article talks about a full decade of events in our subject's public, professional life: e.g., her coverage of various World Cups, a number of Super Bowls (of course: due to our US-centricity), etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said non-english sources couldn't count for notability. I applaud the fact that you have found more sources about her. Truthsort (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.