Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Jimenez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vera Jimenez

Vera Jimenez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Undeleted prod, concern was: "Likely failure of WP:BIO". Sending to AfD for further discussion. Femto 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment Unverified items removed from page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gringoloco (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Fails BIO. Consensus generally holds that local reporters and news anchors are not automatically notable. Kafziel ^Talk 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. IMdB entry says it all, really. Bubba hotep 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.Stompin' Tom 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Come to think of it, what does "undeleted prod" even mean? Looking at history, it had an uncontested prod tag on it for almost 2 weeks. That's an automatic deletion. I'm not a fan of WP:PROD, but why was an AfD even necessary here? Kafziel ^Talk 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because it wasn't deleted as an expired ProD, Femto thought it was contested and needed bringing to the AfD forum. May have been one which slipped through the net, so to speak. Interesting. Bubba hotep 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting after deletion. I got an email from User:Gringoloco which I interpreted as reasonable request for undeletion. Personally I cannot decide about the (non)notability of Mrs. Jimenez, so this deserves a full AfD discussion. Femto 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Yup, that's exactly why prod is so worthless. I can't understand why anyone uses it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I originally submitted this article and this subject has a large fan base in one of the bigger media markets in the world. But I admittedly was unaware of the rules for assuring a notable candidate. I only became alerted to the deletion after some apparent fans e-mailed me questioning what had happened to her Wiki page.