Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Guirao Díaz

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The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Guirao Díaz

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

Despite having existed since 2008, this bio of a living Argentine actor has no reliable sources, and barely any assertion of notability. It appears to be a magnet for edit-warring over non-notable siblings. It mentions a non-notable cousin. Its only reference at all is an external link to the subject's imdb page. I deleted two non-working external links, one purporting to lead to the subject's official page, which led to a blank tempate for constructing a web page and one purporting to lead to the subject's facebook page, which yielded a "matieral not found" message.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 January 2013‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom Suggest instead we adopt FRF's proposal: "We can stub it and start over, adding some of those sources (they tend to be redundant) rather than delete and userify and re-create. If you have no objections I can go ahead and do that, I just dislike doing large changes to articles that are in AFD."David in DC (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a telenovela actor that has had multiple secondary and two primary roles so far, and is also popular in Italy WP:ACTOR is met, and WP:GNG is as well. I understand this has become a magnet for contentious editing but there is no lack of sources out there, albeit in Spanish and Italian: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Most actors that have had principal roles in telenovela productions in Latin America are almost universally notable, because that kind of programming represents so much of the overall broadcast content in many of those countries. What I am unable to find at this point is a reliable basic bibliographical source other than IMDb. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I agree with the above evaluation of the telenovela genre and what it means to have had several lead roles. I also agree that this actor has an apparently significant multinational following, known (according to sources) in at least Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, and Italy. The only problem with "a reliable basic bibliographical source other than IMDb" is that IMDb isn't reliable. Its only acceptable use is as an external link. Reliably published biographical content can be found at several of the links above, however: here (birth date; moderate reliability), here (interview on family life: indicates his brothers are a set of twins, but he doesn't have one himself — center of the edit war), here (birth date, education, roles); here (interview on family life: indicates a family of 3 brothers, including himself; touches on content dispute); here (roles); here (roles again); here (family relation again and another role). These sources aren't esteemed founts of world-class writing, but they do report many non-controversial facts for which their reliability is sufficient, and in a way that is not particularly sensational or harmful. Of course, they also contain gobs of trivia and human interest that isn't biographically significant (for example, interviews on being good-looking and having multiple partners, and a non-fatal non-criminal car accident in Uruguay). This article needs a rewrite and maybe protection, but the subject looks notable to me. JFHJr (㊟) 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read Spanish or Italian, so I had no idea about most of these sources and couldn't evaluate the two I found, though neither looked like a WP:reliable source. If someone could insert the best of the sources, weeding through the one's noted here to re-write the article, it sounds like I'd have to trust that work and withdraw this nom. Otherwise, I think the two comments above argue for userfying the article until it can be reliably sourced. JFH, Frog, if the latter option were the way this got closed, would either of you be in a position to host and update the userfied article? David in DC (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can stub it and start over, adding some of those sources (they tend to be redundant) rather than delete and userify and re-create. If you have no objections I can go ahead and do that, I just dislike doing large changes to articles that are in AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes good sense.

I'll keep the page on my watch list and try to revert the inevitable spike in vandalism that will occur once the articled is stubbed. But, I don't speak the languages, so if others who do would also take this precaution, to evaluate whether the sources used (if any) are reliable, I'd appreciate it.

Can someone please give me a tip or two about how to determine if a foreign language website is a reliable source, on my talk page. I know how to cut-and-paste text into google translate to get a Bizzaro world semi-tuchased translation of the texts, but that works less well to figure out if the source is a fan-zine website or, rather, the equvalent of People magazine/TV Guide/Entertainment Tonight. David in DC (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the most reputable sources (Leonardo.it and El Clarin) to back up the claims in the bio (and removed some which are irrelevant) and cleaned it up a bit as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one more. David in DC (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (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.