Terpene

thcscience_admin
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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Rodríguez[edit]

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

Georgina Rodríguez (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)

Famous for being a footballer’s girlfriend. She cannot have an article until she is independently notable. The subject clearly fails the notability criteria. Thesixserra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. You beat me right to it. I was moments away from nominating it myself. Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Personal life as it was before if no other options. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I wish editors would understand the subject's notability is not as a "footballer's girlfriend", or in even more demeaning terms as some edit summaries have described. This article needs to be considered in terms of a highly popular social media personality, whose subject is notable enough to have an entire Netflix documentary about them (I Am Georgina), and over 40 million Instagram followers. Many other internet celebrities are notable enough for articles despite having much fewer followers than Rodriguez, much less coverage than her, though are clearly more likely to be male, whereas Rodriguez is female. The article needs work, but there are at least ten other Wikipedia projects having articles about this subject, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Persian, Portuguese and Spanish. Given the subject's independent notability, it would be strange if this was redirected to the subject's husband. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference from El Mundo, a high-quality newspaper source from Spain. The most rigorous sources are in Spanish, and the bulk of high quality sources for this subject will be in Spanish and Portuguese, as the subject's popularity is greatest across the Latin-speaking world. It would be especially helpful if a fluent speaker of Spanish could add references and help to build the article. Rodriguez may be seen as equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian, who also has an overwhelming social media and celebrity presence in their own right, despite connection with their male romantic partners. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m semi-fluent in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In one of the sources in Spanish where she is actually interviewed she said she only wants to talk about cuidados físicos y de belleza (physical care and beauty) and rejected any questions her personal life with Ronaldo or family besides where she was born and raised and her previous jobs. That source itself ([xlsemanal.com/estilo/gente/20180327/georgina-rodriguez-cristiano-ronaldo.html XL Semanal]) wasn’t of high quality. Other sources lean into tabloid-ism and give the same Cinderella story of how she met her partner but the idea that she is equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian is mendacious. Kim Kardashian is on the list of TIME’s Top 100 Most Influential People. She is the standard bearer of the construct of modern beauty and fame. Even if she never met Kanye West she would still be famous by herself because she’s been on her own TV show since 2007. And now the current show broke records for Hulu. Trillfendi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to read anything from that interview, it should be that her notability does not rely on her spouse. It may be more appropriate to say she is analogous rather than equivalent to Kim Kardashian, for the Spanish-speaking world. As you mention that Kardashian has a TV show of her own, so does Rodriguez herself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forget Kardashian... Geirdina Rodriguez should never be mentioned in the same sentence what Kardashian even in terms of "(read false) anology". Karsahian already beame very promient figure before Cristiano Ronaldo started his career, not to mention, Critiano was also her parthner in 2010 but noboday talk about it given how big and notable is Kardashian lol. If ever then Georgina Rodriguez is infinietly less notable than Darya Dugina which does not have article on Russia Wikipedia but is redirect to his father. She is anology to her beause of Georina is gfamous because of her parther, and Darhya because of her father. Regardless WP:recentism and regardless Pageviews means nothing; if we are going by that logic then if we exclude English, Spanish, Poortuguese and Arabic Wikipedia (Georgina is Spanish, Cristiano is from Portugal and now plays in Saudi Arabia) Georgina last two weeks gets she has only 131 949 pageviews meanwhile Darya Dugina during "peak media coverage had 1 122 268 pagevies but does not have article on home/Russian wiki as I said before. People who defend by WP:Otherstuffexist do not ralise that other people nominated for edeletion mostly are muh older than 1994 year birth and are not nominated during peak of media cverage. El Mundo and El Pais are not also reliable source, certainly not enough to get significant coverage. By all that mean, per WP:Not !Voting and WP:Consensus I am pretty sure discussion shows that article should be delted per WP:common sense most people who !vote for keep said nothing other than weak soiurces and WP:I like it.Dawid2009 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkSide830, Oleg Yunakov, Tambor de Tocino, Zaathras, Wikisaurus, and Alsoriano97:} Sorry for spam ping but I noted you all six were supporting Daruya Dugnova as merge into article about her deah (or eventually father), do you have any eventual comment about people who !vote for keeping Georgina Rodriguez due to "just being famous thank to wp:recentism"? If article about Georgina Rodriguez was delted then mabe could be bit more chance to article about Darya Dugina was merge - just saying. @Spartaz, Wm335td, Gene93k, Johnpacklambert, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Novemberjazz, and BananaFiend: I noted you seven were !voting to support removing Alexis Texas despite fact she is atually mentioned in print books and independly far more popular than eorgina Rodriguez (however not sure how it was during time of nomination), out of curiosity what do you think about that nomination? WP:otherstuffexist could work or not? I only ping more people to reeach wieder consensus and to closer of discussion make longer rationale (not speedy keep a ka other language versions are). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I will say, as is, this article should be merged, but I think there's merit for a standalone article upon expansion. Personally, I think the true "notability" of someone like Rodríguez (who, even besides her relationship to Ronaldo, is mostly for being an influencer) really isn't Wikipedia-worthy, but then again we have plenty of such individuals with pages and presumably several less notable than Rodríguez. This and the amount of material present in her pages on some of the other Wikis leads me to feel more neutral to her being noteworthy of having a page. Going back to my original point, I can't see how this article is acceptable for the mainspace in it's state. As is it does nothing to show Rodríguez's notability. Reeks of just another article shoved into the mainspace half-baked. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wish people would use just a tidbit of common sense here. There are two sentences in this article that which you are asking for the speedy keep of… one sentence is that she is an Argentine-Spanish model and influencer and the other is that she is the life partner of Cristiano Ronaldo, obviously a famous footballer. That’s it. There is nothing inherently notable about these two sentences to have a Wikipedia article about. Having 44 million Instagram followers does not create notability for a Wikipedia article per any Wikipedia standards on notability. Other languages of Wikipedia have their own standards for inclusion that have no bearing on English Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for an article should be assessed among reliable sources, not the article itself, although interestingly the article itself already has over 40,000 views in less than a week. I thought that other language Wikipedia projects having their own inclusion standards would come up here, but this is actually an indication to support inclusion, as generally their inclusion standards are higher than that of English Wikipedia, and that we have their content and references to draw from. Along with being among the most followed people on Instagram, these do not necessarily mean the subject has met notability criteria automatically, it requires some investigation, but these should indicate to editors that it is worth assessing the subject's notability, and not simply dismissing the subject as the female spouse of another prominent person. However, I do agree that the article should give a better indication of the subject's notability, which is currently lacking from the article, which is a very new stub article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to remember that social media numbers can be boosted by bots; until some of the sites can guarantee they've gotten rid of bots, we can't use likes/followers/stream numbers as any sort of proof of "notability". You can pay people that guarantee to boost your followers/stream numbers/likes, making these numbers unverifiable and untrustworthy, so we can't use them for notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use social media statistics as evidence of notability, they can be an indicator for us to investigate notability further. Bots are less relevant at over 40 million followers, and bots are unlikely to be involved in this article now having 60,000 views since being created less than a week ago, about 6,000 times more than the amount of views most deleted articles get. Not necessarily evidence of notability itself, but an indication for us to look further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't even have her hometown, life history or how she came to meet her partner. Usually that would stretch this towards a keep, but as-is we're asking for an infobox and an Instagram account to count for WP:N, when the article lacks anything else. As usual, I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrSchimpf: The subject's place of birth has been added to the article. I can add biographical background to the article unless somebody else does. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrSchimpf: Do you think the article has these details now? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does, and plenty of sources. I'm convinced to keep now. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of coverage about the couple, but they had a still-born infant recently, so I don't think that meets GNG for her alone. I tried French sources, but it's all celebrity fluff but lots of coverage about the death of their son. Sad as it is, that alone is not enough for GNG, models aren't automatically notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly many celebrity-related magazine articles about the subject, but there are also news articles from more substantive sources. I will find the sources that are more suitable for Wikipedia and add them to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per El Pais and El Mundo pieces located and linked below. GiantSnowman 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quoting myself above; 'I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further.' I apologize if I my knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese is rudimentary, but I wouldn't know where to start to search for es/pt sources. Please don't get mad at me, or others who speak primarily English, because we don't hold that knowledge. I good-faith believe the nom did BEFORE in English to an acceptable degree and shouldn't be attacked for not considering es/pt sources. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @MrSchimpf: I often check other language wiki's to see whats there when articles come up for AfD. There is nothing wrong with not checking them (so don't beat yourself up over it), but that option is there to discover on the navigation tree. Also I don't know what browser you're using, but a good few have the option to translate a page. Regards. Govvy (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above that I am at this point in time semi-fluent in Spanish (I’ve made multiple Wikipedia articles in Spanish from the top of my head including the Spanish article for Silk Sonic) and Brazilian Portuguese so yes, I read the tabloid fodder on the other articles and would like to believe English Wikipedia has higher standards than “she is the partner of Cristiano Ronaldo”. Outside of her relationship with a super famous man she has done nothing independently notable to make an article about. Irina Shayk has. Just mi opinión. Trillfendi (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability certainly isn't on the basis of being the spouse of someone notable. It is largely about her social media presence, which is quite significant. Other stuff aside, we rightfully have articles about people many times less influential. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject meets WP:GNG, regardless of the state of the current article, as the subject regularly receive[s] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The trouble for English Wikipedia is that there is extensive coverage of the subject in low-quality sources in English. There are some high quality sources on the subject in English, but these can be obscured by a search engine with the lower quality ones, while the quality of sources is relatively higher in the Spanish language. The two largest Spanish newspapers, El Pais and El Mundo, regularly report on the subject as an independently notable person [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the current article, WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese articles ( es:Georgina Rodríguez and pt:Georgina Rodríguez) are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Article could easily be expanded by a fluent speaker of one of those languages. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ton of notable coverage online and in other Wikis, BEFORE wasn't done properly.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of coverage. Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article seems notable, she is a influencer and model before Ronaldo even met her.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorlee44 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually she was an au pair and then Gucci shop assistant before Ronaldo met her. The influencer role didn’t come until their relationship started. Trillfendi (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But she is a influencer now that really even make her notable.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Argentina. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While indeed she may not have been notable prior to meeting Ronaldo, we're evaluating based upon her current notability. And, the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia articles are more than sufficient to show that she meets WP:NBASIC in her own right; her coverage includes Spain's largest general-interest newspapers El Mundo and El País. I am surprised that these did not come up before nominating this for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now has over 120,000 views from the last week-and-a-half of its existence. Is this a record for an article nominated for deletion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anecdotal evidence but usually when a new article is linked to an article that gets millions of views per month like this guy the views skyrocket like that. Trillfendi (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still many more views than most articles linked to that one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RECENTISM Can effect notability. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer of discussion should take into account that Cristiano had better hits than article on United States recently due to his transfer, and should take into account Georgina even is not most promient "parthner of sportpwrson" due to recentism. We ate going to keep Georgina but delte article about Pele's death because of wikipedia is not print? What willl be next? Delting article on funreal of pope but creating another articles about sportpeople' wifes? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Cristiano Ronaldo. Redundand. We are not print encyxlopedia but if article on Pele's death and funreal is going to be merge due to overlap, then Georgina Rodriguez must go as far as possible to Cristiano's article as well. It would be far too big disgrace for Wikipedia if we keep article with no wp:anybiibut but mergre article with encyclopedical, heritage and history value. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the death and funeral of Pele should be its own article, then... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to that discussion here then (I hope closer of that discussion will takre that othestuff exist into account as well if defenders arguments via other wikipedias have it). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about how "other stuff" existing (or not existing) does not mean that an article being discussed, such as this one, should also exist or not. This article isn't about a footballer's spouse, it's about an influential social media personality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2023 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgina_Rodr%C3%ADguez

Leave a Reply