Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Ugalde

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. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Ugalde

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

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

A search across Google (incl. Google Books, Scholar etc.) returns just a single source – an entry within a reference book – which is already cited in the article. Article would also be an orphan if not for a single mention elsewhere – the fact that she decorated a room at a museum. Fails WP:GNG. Jkaharper (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets our notability requirements of WP:ANYBIO per criterion #3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography) as she has a verifiable entry in: Jules Heller; Nancy G. Heller (19 December 2013). North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-63882-5, Page 551 and 611. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a "standard national biographical dictionary", being limited to one gender, one profession and one century (although covering more than one country. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, that is not a dictionary of national biography and its the sole existing source for her that I already identified above. There are no others. How do you suggest ever expanding the article? --Jkaharper (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source for her entry in the 20th women's encyclopedia is the Enciclopedia de México per comment by Jahaza. No ambiguity that she clearly meets ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source does not meet the tight description of what a standard national biographical dictionary is. Wikipedia needs to be built on multiple secondary sources. This is not happening with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference book returned, as described in the nomination, has a bibliography section for each artist bio. It's not visible on Google Books, but compare to the bibliography for the previous entry in the book. It seems premature to delete the article without verifying whether there are further sources below the bibliography header.--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source for the entry in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary turns out to be "Alvarez, Jose Rogelio, et al. Enciclopedia de México. Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1987," so this would seem to meet WP:ANYBIO.--Jahaza (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Netherzone's comment; passes WP:ANYBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2022 (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.