Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Érika Ortiz Rocasolano

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 and redirect. Bucketsofg 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Érika Ortiz Rocasolano

Delete You can put that information in her sister's article Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano. Gaudio 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of information in this article, and I think, sufficient enough to warrant its own article. There are articles on things that are far less relavant than this one. Érika's sister is Princess of Asturias, which gives her some claim to notability, even prior to her death. For example, Pia Getty, sister of Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece. I don't think she'd have an article if her sister had not married so well, and I believe this is the case for Érika. She was notable enough to recieve a mention in CNN (can't find the article, the summary is here. I think she's notable enough. Morhange 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect besides that it was consensus about that in the talk page. She was on newspapers in Spain two days because she died, but it had no political impact, just the news. She was totally unknown until the time of her "normal" dead. This article talks about an ephemeral news, not the biography of a notable person. Besides, who was in press was not she but her sister and the king, they are notable. While this is another project, take a look at the discussion about this in the Spanish Wikipedia, where many many comments were given about the non-notability of this person. News to wikinews, encyclopedic facts to Wikipedia. Barcex 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not true, she was known before her death as Letizia's sister, but I agree that information should be in Letizia's article. Gaudio 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, she was not totally unknown, in fact she went to her sister's public wedding and she was not hidden. But she had no public life. It is interesting to see that the special issue of ¡Hola! shows Letizia and the Royal Family, focusing on them and not on Erika. Barcex 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm afraid you know nothing about Spanish yellow press, she appeared in several Spanish TV programs (such as Aquí hay tomate), they do that: they follow people when they are in the supermarket, when they are going to work, etc. She was known because of that, but of course, that's not a reason to be in an encyclopaedia.Gaudio 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so after more than one year repeating everywhere in the wikipedias that you should have common rules, now you realised we should.Gaudio 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with princess Letizia of Asturias, besides trivial yellow press mentions there is nothing notable to warrant an article Alf photoman 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as it was the consensus in the talk page before Gaudio started meddling in. She doesn't meet the Wikipedia: Notability criteria. She wasn't famous. She was just known as the sister of a princess and she kept herself out of public spotlight. And about the Pia Getty article, it should be deleted too. That one article about a non-notable person exists it doesn't mean an article about another non-notable person has to exist too. It means the other article has to be deleted too. --Andromeda 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, just your opinions over anybody else's as you guys are used to do in Spanish wikipedia. Everyone's opinion can be important, although you guys forget that very often. Everyone's invited here and everyone has the right to take part, to middle. Gaudio 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bronks 09:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the sister of the wife of a member of royalty does not in itself pass WP:BIO. Nuttah68 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nuttah. -- Pastordavid 21:14, 27 February 2007 (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.