Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet

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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 06:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Sáez de Vernet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Multiple reasons. 1) Non-notable subject, the subject is only known for being the spouse of Luis Vernet. 2. Factually incorrect in numerous place e.g. Vernet left the islands before the Lexington raid. 3. Classic WP:COATRACK as vehicle for proselytizing certain claims made under Argentine claims for the Falklands Islands.

Once the POV material had been stripped and notable facts established there would be no article. W C M_email 17:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information. Ref some of the language allegedly attributed to this individual Malvinense is a term that has only been in use since the 1940s, "Malvinian" and "Malvinan" are recent inventions, they don't even register on Google Ngram [1],[2]. This certainly wouldn't have been in a 19th Century diary. W C M_email 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations usually engender very strong opinions, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilde Vernet y Sáez. I would remind commentators to focus on content, the usual recriminations, wailing and gnashing of teeth, accusation of censorship etc are more likely to convince a closing admin to side with delete. 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group

For those thinking this person was a published 19th Century diarist. Her diary was a personal one, it was placed in the national archives when her husband's papers were donated and it was later published in 1989 by her descendants. W C M_email 17:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:RSN#Does historical fiction establish notability? W C M_email 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – if her diary is a focal point of Argentine claims to the islands, then she would seem to be notable, regardless of the argument's merits. I only translated the article from the Spanish and am not an expert on the subject, but even if some errors need to be corrected, deletion strikes me as extreme. Nick Number

You do realise that sourcing in the article is simply appalling. They are all virtually WP:SPS. Further you're not addressing the point, I never said the diary was relevant, I said the article was being used as a WP:COATRACK. The diary itself is rather dull and uninteresting and contains nothing of any note.

When you say you translated this, did you or did you just cut and paste from an autotranslator? There is no such word as "Malvinian" its a made up word because the Argentines cannot even bear to recognise the English language name for the islands.W C M_email 18:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clearly not a raw copypaste, and I really resent the implication. I generally use Google Translate as a starting point and then put in a lot of work to clean it up. In this particular case, the source quotation reads ¡Mi mujercita malvinense! I checked the demonym listed in the Falkland Islands article, and there was not a good way to make it fit here. "My little Falkland Islander woman!" is stilted. The author is writing informally and affectionately, and I thought using the bastardized word was the best choice. You'll notice I didn't use it anywhere else in the article. Nick Number (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had really cleaned the article up, then you would have done something about the appalling citations used. They're all WP:SPS and included one that is so partisan it is actually banned from use on en.wikipedia "El Malvinense". I am half-Spanish, you can tell when machine translations are used, so forgive me when I point out that the article was not translated by a human. Further, the word used did not exist back in 1829 when this diary was supposedly written, you're reporting a bastardised, politicised and edited version of the diary that does not always reflect the words of the original. Anyone familiar with this subject area is very wary of sources like this, the revisionista movement in Argentina is not above making stuff up or rewriting original documents to suit modern narratives. I note you're still pointedly refusing to address the comment this article is nothing but a WP:COATRACK W C M_email 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Being the wife of a notable person does not automatically confer notability and the details of her life described do not confer notability. If nobody had married and had children in the nineteenth century, none of us would be here. And that's before you get to the WP:COATRACK problem.

Let's be clear that, though her name is the title, this is not an article on Luis Vernet's wife. This is article on how evil the British are and how the Falkland Islands are Argentine really. That is the sole point of having the article on es.wiki (which has always taken a radically pro-Argentine editorial line on Falklands topics), and since this is a copy of the es.wiki article, it is the sole point of having the article here. We already have an article on the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, the fact that es.wiki feels the need to have lots of articles on the subject doesn't mean we should. Kahastok talk 22:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of things that look like reasonable sources in the Spanish article (in so far as I can tell without being about to read Spanish, which is that language of most of the sources). Stuartyeates (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly surprising that sources describing the life of a notable person (Luis Vernet) will mention that that person was married: this does not create notability for the spouse as notability is not inherited. It is also not difficult to find sources promoting the Argentine POV in the modern Falklands dispute - which are used here to write this as WP:COATRACK article. Between them these make up the entire sourcing of this article both here and on es.wiki. Kahastok talk 12:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts One of the wikiprojects is alerting its members to this AFD. I note that there had been no notification of this on this page. W C M_email 11:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The alert on WiR is handled by a bot as the article carried a WiR tag. I found the discussion while reviewing recent articles and have now made a comment on the WiR talk page. (see also my comments below)--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a bot or not, the fact that people are being asked to rescue articles at AFD is something that should be disclosed. I've noticed two things today. All of the "Strong Keep" comments come from members of that project and secondly an awful lot of the output of that project is being deleted as there is a focus on non-notable individuals. Further the comments don't address the fact the article is sourced almost exclusively with self-published sources and is nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Strip out the nonsense and there is nothing left [3]. Seriously, are you happy that the project is copying highly biased articles from es.wikipedia? W C M_email 16:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: the bot doesn't ask to rescue the article, the bot simply notifies communities of interest that a discussion exists. It has been doing so for nearly 10 years now, and is one of the most popular bots in existence. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband. It is inevitable that the Spanish WP, with Argentine editors will take an Argentinian POV on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, covering a short period before the reassertion of British sovereignty. Her husband may well be notable; and her diary may be an important historical source on him, but that does not make her independently notable. This article is largely about what her husband did. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am surprised to find such heated political reactions in the above comments. It may well be that Argentina has drawn on these diaries to reinforce claims of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands but that does not diminish the achievement of a 19th-century women diarist. There are very few biographies of 19th-century Latin-American women, simply because nearly all of them were considered secondary to their husbands. Here is a case when a woman produced an important historical document.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No she didn't, its a document that has in fact been altered to fit with certain nationalist narratives. For example, its been embellished with certain modern phrases that simply didn't exist in the 19th Century. Have you actually read any of the comments above? W C M_email 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Diarists are important figures in understanding history and culture. As is true of all articles, it would benefit from some additional attention, but neither deletion or merge are appropriate or relevant in this case. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the policy that holds that everyone who has ever written a diary is automatically notable. Kahastok talk 16:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kahastok, I didn't say that, and you know it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't see how I'm supposed to interpret your comment in any other way. Kahastok talk 21:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In 2012 and 2015 she was identified as an important historical woman. Therefore also modern parameters are considering her worthy of attention. Improving the article is an option. Delete or Merge it is not an option according to me. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in 2012 and 2015, there were events held in the Argentine museum dedicated to its sovereignty claim, where a number of inaccurate and misleading claims about various parts of her diary were made. We need to separate what is nationalist propaganda from notability. W C M_email 16:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article from Clarín a major newspaper in the region, barely mentions her husband, instead stating that her diary is important for chronicling the early history of the area and women's role in society. In fact, it states she was "the first chronicler of the islands", clearly a unique claim to her own notability. That is bolstered by this more brief claim in Pagina 12 which also notes the historic importance of the diary. POV and poor sourcing are not reasons for deletion, rather reasons to edit and improve. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarin article is an opinion piece by Leticia Martin that doesn't establish notability, Clarin in any event being well known for pushing a hard line on Argentina's sovereignty claims. Pagina 12 is also the mouthpiece of the Peronist party, also well known for pushing a hard line. Neither article is about the person, both are the usual posturing about Argentina's sovereignty claims. I'm stunned, simply stunned, do you even understand the concept of WP:NPOV. W C M_email 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster:: I am sorry to see that you have removed large informative passages from the original article, reducing it to a state at which it could indeed justify a redirect to the husband's biography. Here we are not primarily involved with the political confrontation between Argentina and the United Kingdom but rather with the work of a pioneering 19th-century diarist who produced a telling historic document. Please try to consider María Sáez de Vernet's importance in this light and help us to improve the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a pioneering 19th Century diarist and please quit the accusations of bad faith. You cannot argue notability of this individual and the abuse and misrepresentation of her diary in a modern context does not confer it either. I removed all of the self-published sources that were about modern nationalist narratives, editing to restore the article to represent wikipedia's core policy of a WP:NPOV. Go and try to write much more using souces that meet the requirements of WP:RS. I really don't understand why your project is fighting to keep so many articles on non-notable individuals on wikipedia. If you're so interested in helping in the area concerning Falkland's history, you could start by helping with projects of mine such as Antonina Roxa. Now she was notable in her own right. W C M_email 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add you entirely miss the point, if you remove the POV material laden material concerning the as you put it "the political confrontation between Argentina and the United Kingdom", that is all that is left. This is why I nominated this for deletion. W C M_email 16:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster, sorry, but I'm a bit surprised at the tone and content of some of your comments here. I could be the administrator closing this thing, and in that case I'd be more inclined to take umbrage at your responses, not to mention the accusations of poor word choice, machine translations, etc. I'd point out that AfD is not for cleanup, and that we judge articles based on notability, not article quality, and that we should refrain from being all-too bitey. You've nominated the thing, you've spoken your peace, please be done with it. Kahastok, you too--I am also surprised at your comments here. I do not understand why this generated such hostility. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster I am completely neutral on politics and refuse to inject them into this debate. Argentina's sovereignty claims have nothing at all to do with whether a diary is historically significant and gives insight into a historical period and the role women played in society in her era. As Martin is a writer, university faculty member, and literary critic, her ability to assess the historic importance of a literary work and its creator to my mind makes her a reliable source, regardless of your claims of the newspaper's bias. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you pinged me I'll respond. Argentina's sovereignty claims have everything to do with why articles like that exist in Argentina. They are not neutral academic articles. If you want to we can take this discussion to WP:RSN but wikipedia has always stressed we should not confuse WP:FACT and WP:OPINION. W C M_email 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unusually for me, I think just about enough has been done to justify retention. Deb (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 24 references are available on the Spanish version of the article that could be used to improve the article. John Cummings (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG - Redención de la soberanía: Las Malvinas y el diario de doña María Sáez de Vernet is a 156-page book for heaven's sake. No doubt it pushes a Argentine nationalist POV, but this does not disqualify it. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the book listed above by Johnbod, there are also María de las Islas: novela histórica (1982) and Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor (2012). Both appear to be historical fiction rather than scholarship, but I think they still contribute to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far as I'm concerned, notability has been met. I'm not going to get into the POV issues - they don't negate the notability question, to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the light of my comments above, I am pleased to see that several pertinent sources have now been revealed, testifying to the notability of María Sáez de Vernet and the interest in her diaries. On this basis, the article could be significantly improved.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a significant figure in her own right with her diaries providing historically interesting detail. Appears to meet WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I am not impressed with historical novels being used as sources of notability. Burt there do appear to be one or two other Spanish language sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to contemporary coverage generated by her diaries. And note that work of fiction in which a previously obscure historical character plays a role can establish notability; provided that the work of historical fiction is notable, and that publication of the work of fiction and the character's role in it generates secondary coverage. For example, we have a recently created article about Angelica Hamilton, supported by coverage of her life generated by a recent work of historical fiction Hamilton (musical).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would want my Spanish to be better to decide on Keep/Delete, but from the 'keep' statements above, and assuming a keep is the outcome, I think the closer should specifically say 'without prejudice to any future discussion to change/move the topic of the article from the person to the diary'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The contemporary and modern coverage is impressive. The nom needs to understand sources can be opinion pieces about the subject. The Clarín article about her could be entitled "María Sáez de Vernet was the Worst Person Ever!" and it would still count towards notability.--Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does understand notability. The fact that a character in a fictional novel is based on this person makes the fictional character notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. The fact that this person's diary has been used in the 20th Century to further Argentina's sovereignty claim makes the sovereignty claim notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. Contemporary coverage of this individual at a Museum dedicated to furthering Argentine's sovereignty claim is notable but does not confirm notability upon the individual. There are numerous comments here all coming from members of the same wikiproject who are voting keep who plainly don't understand notability. At best this person may merit a footnote in articles about the books, the sovereignty dispute article or the museum article but they don't merit their own dedicated article. W C M_email 06:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually understand notability, then you understand that it doesn't matter how a person became notable, but if they are notable. Your POV beef is with the faction who made her notable. If you don't like that she's notable, fine. But that doesn't change the reality. --Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only person to have mentioned POV - I'm arguing notability. This person isn't notable. It seems people are more interested in metrics of their project than concern for the quality of the article. W C M_email 08:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woman writes diary - not notable. Diary published long after her death - interesting. Lots of people get excited and start seeing her and her diary as pivotal/relevant in a dispute over the sovereignty of a set of islands - notable. Victuallers (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - people getting excited over her diary - vaguely notable. The controversy is notable but it doesn't confer notability on the individual. W C M_email 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it all adds up to make the subject notable enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 10 August 2018 (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.