 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editIs this guy notable? When I linked the Spanish page I saw that that was up for deletion which makes me wonder. I mean, all those credits sound quite impressive but if the Spanish speakers are not convinced I don't see why we should. The Spanish article is no better referenced that this, which is to say very poorly indeed. It is nothing but IMDB, which is just not good enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- + The NY Times article confirming the award is good.
- - The Spanish article seems to have been deleted or moved.
- --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Name
editWhat is the subject's name as commonly used? Is it Daniel Múgica Díaz or Daniel Múgica? IMDB suggests that maybe it is the latter. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Múgica. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.60.151.48 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sock puppetry
editI've requested page protection here. Vrac (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another sock has appeared and reverted the content to the bad stuff. I have reverted this as vandalism and requested indefinite semi-protection. The puppetmaster here seems to take us for fools. We can't keep on like this.
- If the semi-protection is granted then that may also inconvenience some legitimate editors. This is regrettable and I apologise. Unfortunately, I see no other way to deal with this foolishness. If anybody wants to make an edit, and finds that they are unable to, they can suggest it here and somebody else will will make the change if it is deemed beneficial. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know why the SPI has sat for so long, that would be the preferred way to deal with this, but it is what it is. Given that the article is low on the importance scale I don't think protection is that big of a deal. Vrac (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)