Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossy Aguirre (2nd nomination)
- 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. BD2412 T 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Rossy Aguirre
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rossy Aguirre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Last AfD was no consensus due to limited participation - as this has been in
CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get it resolved. She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please. That was less than 2 months ago and sources were presented....Of course, she's still notable. And of course coverage still indicates notability. Keep then, keep now. I will add the sources If that's all it takes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)
- Where an AfD is closed as 'no consensus due to lack of participation', by convention an immediate renomination is allowable. This is covered in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum, namely closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR). Daniel (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel: I am not sure why you would direct me there and make this comment in reply to my !vote but thank you all the same. I never doubted this was allowed. I only pinged you out of courtesy as I did ping everyone who had contributed to the last Afd, not to alert you of some violation of any rule. I just find this 2nd Afd very ...unnecessary. I have added the sources. See for yourself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- You wrote "Please. That was less than 2 months ago" regarding the last AfD. I am simply pointing out that the time since the last AfD is irrelevant here, given it was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, right, fair, yes that made sense, apologies.i should not have mentioned the time span. It was more to suggest the tags would eventually be removed and that to allow contributors more time to do so would have maybe been a good idea. But you are right, let me clarify: whether yesterday or in 2 years from now, I think this new Afd is unnecessary. Sources presented should have be taken into account. Maybe, now that tags are removed and sources (+ other sources) have been added, this time will be the last, though. Thanks again@Daniel and sorry about this, I am sort of ranting. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- You wrote "Please. That was less than 2 months ago" regarding the last AfD. I am simply pointing out that the time since the last AfD is irrelevant here, given it was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- notifications to participants in 1st Afd: @Daniel, Liz, MisterWizzy, and Rublamb:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources exist to expand this article. Because we consider the article's potential and not just its current state, guidelines are to keep. Wikipedia is a process and there is no time limit on when an article is improved. Rublamb (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.