Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna

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 no consensus. This means that because there is no agreement about whether the subject is notable enough for an article or not, the default outcome is to keep the article.  Sandstein  07:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Deluna

Marisol Deluna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance WP:A7. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:BIO. Msnicki (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article was recently slashed to almost nothing. Certainly, much of it read like a puff piece, but I have no comment on whether the amount of slashing was justified. In any event, despite the poorly written article, I believe she is sufficiently notable as a fashion designer to keep the article (and hopefully improve it). I did a cursory search, and here are third-party sources about her contributions: first, second, and third (PDF). There are probably others if I look longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first and third links you gave are to promotional material that cannot be taken as independent. The second link is to a short article in a small circulation local paper. To the extent the subject is not just an individual, but also a brand name, I think WP:CORPDEPTH provides useful guidance: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I think it takes more than has been offered to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that two of the links are partly promotional. However, they provide some verification of Deluna's work and the recognition of her work. I also agree that the San Antonio link is for a local paper, but I don't think your guideline quote adds much to what we have to do to satisfy notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the important part: "the subject of significant coverage" (emphasis added.) I think this asks that the bar be a little higher when commercial interests are involved. Another avenue of establishing notability might be WP:CREATIVE, e.g., if her works were now part of museum collection, but I don't think we have that, either. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Apparently, the focus of Deluna's work is for non-profits, but I confess I'm having trouble finding third-party online sources that report on her work. I did find one more, although not exactly a mainstream magazine, here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to discard this last SPS.Racconish Tk 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the article was shortened considerably, several editors have been unable to find secondary sources, citations, mentions, or other unbiased, non-promotional articles about the subject that verify any of the claims made in the original piece. The key issue is the subject not having significant coverageItalic text from outside sources and being too much opinion rather than fact. The original article was very lond and detailed had way too much linkining, name-dropping, unverifiable claims, and was all for a person who is not a household name. I have searched high and low for citations and the bulk of the information available on the subject is either self-promotional or of the "socialite" variety. Attending galas is hardly an adequate reason for a WP article in my opinion. I don't believe she meets the notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 May 2011
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, the nominator misunderstand AfD, A7, or both, and didn't read the article. To say that there is no claim of importance in this article is simply to say that one hasn't read it--of course there are claims to notability.

    Second, the Austin American Statesman devoted an entire article to her (cited in the article, but not available online). I have it here through ProQuest and will cite you the first paragraph: "For most of the fashion industry, Sept. 11 was crippling, driving sales down, and making luxurious fashion seem frivolous. But for 35- year-old San Antonio native Marisol Deluna, the infamous date was a motivator. Deluna was living in downtown Manhattan at the time of the World Trade Center attacks and lost her best friend, Sara Manley, when one of the hijacked planes crashed into Manley's 92nd- floor office. Shortly thereafter, Deluna returned to her parents' Alamo Heights home for a month." Also, there this, The New York Times reporting on the woman's marriage. That's pretty much like an obituary--if the Times writes you up when you are married or dead, you are notable. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT has an on-line form for submitting wedding announcements. They certainly don't send a reporter out to do any fact-checking. This makes these things like a verbatim reporting of a press release (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and not useful for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as seen in the article How to Submit a Wedding Announcement, "Submissions are rewritten, fact-checked and edited to Times standards." So they are, in fact, vetted for accuracy. Also, you have to provide reasoning for what makes you notable to be included in the Times' announcements. Alteran1 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Alteran1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
After going through the NYT archives, this may well be correct. I note that the online article is listed under "Style", whereas the archives list them under "Wedding and Engagements." You live and learn. Drmies (talk)
I'd venture to say that NYT's procedures have changed since Ms. Deluna was married. When I was growing up, generally speaking it was a BIG DEAL to get a wedding announcement in the TImes and there was definitely fact checking and editing involved. Additionally, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Weddings and Engagements section contained within the Style section (or at least was at that time?)--Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many mentions constitute "significant coverage"? After all this debate and there are less than three articles as proof of Deluna's notability? Aa1232011 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the gutting of this article was initiated by Aa1232011 (talk) on May 19th, and he/she provided no reasoning for why they removed large swaths of content from this article. I'm concerned that their motivations are personal, such that of a personal enemy of Marisol Deluna, and her wikipedia article has unjustifiably become a target because of it. Also, all of Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) contributions are confined entirely to articles concerning Marisol Deluna, adding further evidence to this being a personal vendetta. Alteran1 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Alteran1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But you only have 35 edits yourself. And 24 of them are on the subject of this one individual. Glass houses and all that. Let's talk about reliable sources, please, not each other. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be concerned of a possible personal vandetta too, maybe not necessarily by Aa1232011, but by some of the folks editing this page. Wasn't there an edit recently stating that she was from "Cementville"? I spent some time in that part of Texas growing up, and that's not exactly a nice term to say about somebody from her section of San Antonio, which to me suggests somebody has an issue with the article's subject. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd reply here because I'm having my motives questioned and it's not part of the discussion. First, I don't know Mrs. Deluna personally and no amount of 'vendetta' will get so many other editors on WP to delete or edit sections of someone's bio if it were well sourced and could be independently ve rified. I am new to WP editing and French living in the U.S. I found Mrs. Deluna's article by following a link in the 'List of famous French people' WP article. When I got to Deluna's bio, I read she is in fact American born and since there was no mention of her having been naturalized as a French citizen, I proceeded to delete her from that list. Then I followed some of MANY links on her page and found another mention of her in the list of 'notable Argentinian people'. Hmmmmm. Then in another list of 'Notable Spanish people' and so on. Long story short, my curiousity was piqued and the more links on her page I followed, the more I suspected something fishy. If someone would like to visit my editing history and verify this and my other deletions you are welcome to do so. You will notice I edited only when there was no citation, independent verification from an outside source, where her name was inserted into other articles in short one sentence sections devoted entirely to her, etc. I think a good way to end this discussion would be to follow Wikipedia's standards of finding and citing independent sources of her achievements and claims. Even now, the article mentions some of the Bush's family wearing her designs and again, no outside citation where this can be verified. No need for conspiracy theories. Just follow the rules. Apologies if I'm doing something incorrectly on here, still learning the ropes.Aa1232011 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I have found myself some undue inclusions of Marisol Deluna in other articles. But these problems are surmountable. Concerning the Bush ties, some sources are mentioned here, but I do not have the means to check them. Can you Drmies?Racconish Tk 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A cursory search for Marisol Deluna shows that she is indeed a notable individual and this is a completely improper use of AfD A7. This article shouldn't have been nominated for a speedy deletion, which is more appropriately reserved for something like "Joe Somebody" of Wichita, Kansas creating a page for himself about his bowling record. I would say she's an individual who's notable in the industry but because of what she does, there are few "wikipedia worthy" sources available. However, if I remember my policies correctly, that in of itself does not make the article any less notable or any more "deletable". --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a young woman who designs scarves and ties and markets them through non-profit fund-raising activities. A few of her scarves and ties have been worn by some famous people. She graduated high school, got married and lost a friend on 9-11. Okay, I wish her good luck, but so what? Couldn't this describe (with variations) the lives of a lot of young people who go into fashion (or start out in any other career)? None of this is a reason for an article; absent notability (and directory listings and minor mentions don't do it for me) it is a reason for WP:A7. Msnicki (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's a little more notable than that, and as I stated & other users have pointed out, a cursory search shows that's she's a little more "famous" (for lack of a better word) than that, and this article showed that before it was gutted. Granted, I'll fully admit that the article was somewhat self-promotional, but there were plenty of materials which showed her notability & importance in the industry
For example, I doubt that many fashion designers "just getting their start" get a reference on General Hospital (which, on an aside, I don't understand why this was removed from the article. Such pop culture references would be appropriate, and are prominently featured, in other articles). Hyundai featured her in their Adelante campaign with other prominent hispanic Americans and designers. While somebody earlier in this discussion linked to the same Hyundai campaign, you discounted it as being "promotional" in nature and non important... I'm going to have to call B.S. on that. It is promotional, for Hyundai, not Ms. Deluna. Her inclusion in that material no doubt shows some degree of importance -- enough so much A7 wouldn't be an appropriate tag for this article and it shouldn't have been nominated for any type of speedy deletion.
As for her wedding announcement, as I stated elsewhere in this discussion, the New York Times didn't have an online submission process for wedding announcements in 1999, as far as I know. If you wanted to be featured in a wedding announcement, you had to have some prominence in society and there was definitely a process involved. Given those facts, I'd say that her inclusion there shows some degree of importance that, when given the totality of the circumstances would qualify her for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Finally, I'd state that we should look for sources that indicate her ties and scarves have been used by prominent people, such as the Bushes and Hillary Clinton. I believe somebody has already found something indicating that Mr. and Mrs. Bush have donned her fashions, although that source is indeed from a store (not Ms. Deluna's) rather than an article. Additionally, I believe she has appeared before Queen Elizabeth and presented her work to the Queen -- not exactly, as you would put it, a fashion designer "just getting her start." --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I'm having is with all thee claims that still remain unverified and are being presented here as reasons for a keep is that when combined, all the "proof" of her fame or notority is still very little and sometimes years apart. This tells me there hasn't been substantial or meaningful interest in either her work or personality from enough independent sources for a consistent amount of time. Maybe she met the queen, maybe not. You offer no outside citations for this claim; but when you take into account all the people who get to meet the queen and gift her items during her non-stop world tours it becomes a little trivial. Also, I know from experience working in showbiz that all that is required in order to get written into a show or having a walk-on roll in a series is either a savvy PR person or personal "connections" with a producer or writer. There needs to be more non-promotional independet coverage of an individual to have a WP article IMO.208.54.86.207 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article in La Prensa and the references in 2 books, Business and The Entrepreneur's Ressource, are valid secondary sources. Granted La Prensa is a local newspaper but it seems to me, based on this, it meets usual verifiability standards, at least in terms of editorial oversight and fact-checking. So does the Austin Chronicle. Notability is clearly established (keep), though not huge (weak). Msnicki, I shared your irritation on the promo, but it is now trimmed off and we have to beware of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Also, WP:A7 applies only in the absence of reliable secondary sources, hence not here.Racconish Tk 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing: I don't think the sources are there. The Small Business Sourcebook: The Entrepreneur's Resource is a directory listing. It's essentially self-published information, indiscriminately collected and published, completely useless for establishing notability. Business is a 667-page introductory text on business management that was written in 2005. The citation is deceptive. If you look carefully, you'll see that it's not being used because there's anything in there about this designer (how would that even be plausible?) but to document (for those who weren't sure) that there's a Garment District in Manhattan. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pet peeve: Citations without quotes that make it difficult for others to figure out the usage, especially when the actual source may not be online for inspection. Msnicki (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right for the Small Business Sourcebook: The Entrepreneur's Resource, but you may be wrong too. Any guide is to some extent a directory. The tone and content of the quote lead me to believe there is sufficient fact-checking and the claim Mrs Deluna does charity seems to me sufficiently backed by such source. As for the other book, I did not get your point. In any case, this is a matter of minor notability and minor sources, but I think the issue is to make sure there is no undue claim endorsed by WP, nothing more. Actually, I often looked at this article and considered proposing its deletion, but decided eventually not to do so, for the reasons above, but rather to clean it. And I share the annoyance about the lack of quote. Go ahead and ask! This is what {{full}} is for;)Racconish Tk 15:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can partly chime in: the article definitely was in terrible shape (before Racconish went to work). The sources are relatively slim, no doubt about it--and I'd hate to write a biography with such meager sources. I share some of Msnicki's frustrations re: editing and citing, absolutely. But these are judgment calls, and if we fall on different sides of the divide, we'll just have to live with it. If this gets deleted, I won't shed many tears (I'm not a scarf wo/man myself). Still, I want to note that not all arguments for deletion are valid (e.g., lack of claim to notability), and that mine and others' argument for keeping is hardly as strong as we would want, I think. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies's usual cogent and fair-minded analysis. Essentially, it's a close call, and in my view, that can't establish a consensus for deletion. To the extent it matters, I'd probably change my vote from Keep to coincide with Racconish's Weak Keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Racconish re: the Business citation, notice that the sentence in question reads, "In 1989, after her college graduation,[5] she started working as an employee in the Garment District, Manhattan.[6]" Citation 5 is to the "Designing Woman" article; citation 6 is to the Business introductory text; note also that it's a reference to page XI in that text. I hope this helps. Msnicki (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. Based on the sole 2 newspaper articles, and the possibility there are more, as suggested by the tie link, I would hold to my - hesitant - vote. Racconish Tk 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think the Business citation establishes anything because the sentence it supports doesn't establish notability, just a little background about her beginnings. The sentences that matter are the ones supposedly supported by the Small Business Sourcebook: "Deluna has created designs for various municipalities, educational institutions, fraternal and social organizations. She donated a part of these proceeds to fund-raising projects." If that cite doesn't support the sentences (what's at page 333?), then the sentences should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Small Business Sourcebook is a directory of self-reported information. You can look at some random sample pages here; it's like the Yellow Pages without the display ads. If you'd like to submit your own information, you can do it here. Msnicki (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thanks, supports your position.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sporadic mentions in regional or promotional material, social outings, a NYT wedding announcement from 1999, and footnotes that can't be verified at this moment are not enough for an article. I did an extensive search in fashion industry journals, trade magazines, events (fashion week guests, designers, celebrities etc), I even tried to find a reputable institution that carries her line or has it as part of their collection and came back emty handed. There just hasn't been a important event, contribution, or mention of her anywhere or substantially to merit a keep. We are talking a handful of mentions over at least a 20 year or longer career. If what's been presented as proof of notoriety were enough for a bio on WP, there would be thousands of new additions everyday of people no one is heard of. 208.54.86.207 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We've got a couple local interest stories and that's it. In light of the commercial aspect, I simply don't see this as meeting either the letter or the spirit of the significant coverage described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:CORPDEPTH even apply? Sure, Ms. Deluna has a business, but I believe WP:CREATIVE would be more applicable, in which case you're entire point isn't valid. Or maybe not, I don't know. I just know that the standard is pretty low and we should err on the side of caution when it comes to deleting an article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, WP:CREATIVE would indeed be another way of establishing notability in lieu of sources. But WP:CREATIVE considers critical reviews of her works or evidence that her work is now part of a museum collection, stuff like that, none of which we have here. The reason WP:CORPDEPTH applies is because her name is also her commercial brand and pretty obviously the whole reason for the article. Msnicki (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE isn't only about museums. For example, you could argue that her creation of designs for non-profits, etc. (if that can be supported) is a "significant new concept". Of course, I don't know how "new" it is. It may be a stretch, but several of us agree that, if kept, it's a weak keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it WAY more than a stretch. Msnicki (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess capitalizing "way" is a way of stretching "stretch". Do you remember Stretch, Archie Bunker's friend?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take the time to point out that this article is nominated for deletion under A7 - No indication of importance. The criterion of A7 specifically states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you read the footnote attached to that statement, "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." (emphasis mine). With all of that in mind, speedy deletion is not appropriate for this article. I would also say that's it's not a candidate for the normal deletion process, as notability can possibly be established. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The effective word is *CREDIBLE*. As previously mentioned, the article describes someone being born, going to school, starting a business, gifting her designs to people who are gifted things all the time, and getting married. Is it credible that such an alleged important individual has gone unnoticed all these years by pretty much everyone who is paid to notice these things? I do agree that the debate went off on a "notability" tangent but even if you re-frame the conversation, not sure significance or importance is "credible" with so little to go on.Aa1232011 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read the policy, because you are clearly not understanding it. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not an editor on Wikipedia, yet appreciate those who commit themselves to acurate and fair minded contributions. I know Marisol Deluna through her design work and was pleased to see that she was included in the Wikipedia article for the "PILGRIMS SOCIETY" (with few women members as this has traditionally been an "Old Boy's School" and off the internet had been showcased by her scarf design on the front cover of their book. (commissioned by the organization under the advisement of Henry Luce III of the Life Magazine Luce family) She is also on the inside cover explaining her work and membership written by Mr. Luce himself in *The Pilgrims of Great Britain: A Centennial History (2002) - Anne Pimlott Baker, ISBN 1-86197-290-3. However when I noticed her name was removed from their article, it lead me to the Wikipedia "Marisol Deluna" article and subsequently this discussion to show notability. Reading your comments, although thoughful, please allow me to offer a different perspective. Marisol was presented to HM Queen Elizabeth II on two occasions due to her work. I am familiar with both yet know details about the second. It was not a chance meeting in June 2009 at St. James's Palace in London for a private reception hosted for selected Pilgrims Society members in which HM is a patron. (This can be verified through the Majesty's official calendar) Moving forward, I have been impressed by Marisol's business model for years as she will design and take on charitable causes that reach far beyond most fashionable channels without exploitation. She spoke about this at the Campus of Excelencia in Spain (by invitation) There is a "You Tube" clip that shows her lecture. If you go to the "Campus website", you will see several Nobel Prize recipents and other notables listed alongside Marisol. As for finding articles online, if you can get membership private access to many websites (or the noted directly) including the Lansdowne Club in London, the Cosmopolitan Club in New York, numerous Junior Leagues and Colonial Dames (both the CDA and NSCDA), New England Society, American Yacht Club (the oldest in the USA), the Daughters of the American Revolution in London, Holland Dames, Daughters of the British Empire, Wellesley College Alumni(in addition to LULAC, she knows Hillary and Bill Clinton through her designs- just ask) Keeping in mind that she was a middle class hispanic child- Her work is merited by her ability, not elitism or family connections. (I know she did a project for the New York Housing Authority which can likely be found online of through direct contact. This was done at cost) She is obviously a proud Texan (as previously stated) and creates items for the San Antonio Rodeo annually to assist in their scholarship program. This can be seen on their website or through direct contact which has a huge outreach. As I am familiar with the New York Times Wedding Announcements' selection process- Research is done, especially in the 1990's and in the busy month of June when she was married. (This can be researched) I belong to many organizations and her outreach is impressive. For example, the Association of Junior Leagues International has nearly 200,000 members. The Girl Scouts of the USA has countless. The Alpha Phi Foundation and so on. Marisol Deluna as you noted focuses on non for profit and charity. She quietly built a playground for her elementary school to honor her sister who was nominated "Texas Teacher of the Year in 2001". This can be verified through the school. To the point of being notable, please visit websites or contact such as LULAC (the oldest hispanic organization in the USA), the Girl Scouts of USA, the goverment sites for her hometowns San Antonio, TX and New York, NY and so on- Many items are posted for sale, yet her designs are identified as "Fashion Designer Marisol Deluna" whereas other's goods on their websites are not. This is likely used as a selling point due to her following. Due to the nature of her work, she is respected for her dedication to charity and not traditional runway or fashion publications. I read the mention about her having a good publicist for placement on "General Hospital". If this were the case, it is arguable that she did not exploit this mention through promotional material or press releases. (I could not find any through a "Google" search) As for it being a "Stretch", Marisol has made many organizations fashionable which is not common place. She has done so thoughfully and consitantly since her company began. As I did not grow up with computers, many private institutions still depend on direct outreach, so likely for those weary of her lack of presence on the internet should reasonably keep this in mind. I feel strongly to stand up for her, yet she would likely be humbled. Marisol Deluna is worthwhile and not just another fashion designer. She is an American who lives and works in New York, Buenos Aires, Argentina and although not French has lived as an expat for years in Paris. (I am mentioning this to clear up the multi notations as to her nationality as stated on this discussion page) I have been told through several friends that she is currently rebranding the Girl Scouts for their 100th Anniversary to be unveiled in 2012 (an honor) in addition to several other projects despite the current economic climate. Deleting this page would a shame and premature. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJC (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — HenryJC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I took the time to read your contribution and while I understand you coming to the aid of your aquaintance, most of the points you make still cannot be verified by independent outside sources. If you read the notability guidelines, notability by association (such as when you mention Deluna knowing the Bush' or being a member of prestigious social institutions) does not prove "notability" as far as justifying a personal biography on this website. I tried again to look for more mentions of Deluna and maybe find some lost articles that could be used for citations, quotes, or for validation but have not been able to. Other than the social media variety of mentions and what has been previously mentioned on here, there doesn't seem to be much else. This does not mean all the things you mention are any less admirable or didn't happen, just hard to verify as per Wikipedias regulations. Remember, this is in no way a personal attack. If you notice all the editors that have worked on this article the most are regular contributors and are really trying to find more information that may be used as a reason to keep the article. The reason why some of us deleted mentions of Deluna in other pages is because her inclusion in them was either unjustified, such as with the French citizen article, or had no citation and could not be sourced. Also, living in a country, having a home there, or studying there is different than being a citizen of that country. Another problem I have personally found is that all the mentions I did find associating Deluna to some of the organizations you mention were in 'storefronts" which is promotional in nature such as with the Rodeo, LULAC and the Girl Scouts. The bottom line is that all these things are still being considered. 208.54.86.207 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with these so-called "promotional in nature" materials being excluded as 'sources' for the purposes of this discussion. In some instances, a Deluna product being offered on a storefront may be the only way to know that she's associated with a particular organization or cause, as most of her work is done for charitable causes -- something that is not regularly covered in the media. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all it took to be subject of a Wikipedia article was having known, worked for, or collaborated with a big name organization or person, just about every human being on the planet could and would make a legitimate claim to have an article written about them. Think about it. A person cannot be notable by osmosis. When an individual makes a significant enough contribution in any field people notice. Even in charity. Not once or twice or every couple of years; all the time! Articles are written about the person, interviews take place, body of work is added to collections, work is awarded and critiziced, and most importantly, there is outside evidence of the accomplishment. None of which has happened with Deluna. There are no NEUTRAL sources not related to the subject that we can rely on to establish importance. Really all we have to go on is heresay at this moment; we are told of all these "important" people that have worn her designs but an online search only turns up Marisol Deluna wearing her own clothes and accesories. That was one big problem with the original article. I noticed in the discussion pages for Deluna's page that you mentioned that you and another editor had contributed the article for her so I *kind of* understand if you are taking this a bit personally and have trouble remaining neutral with it's pending deletion. For sure the article needed a huge amount of editing. Agree? I still don't think membership in private clubs (regardless of how prestigious) or friendships to luminaries merits and article. Another thing is that in the over three years the article has been up, it was not cleaned up and most importantly, no new sources were accumulated as far as verifiability goes. That speaks volumes as to the "notability" of the subject I think. Lastly, I noticed when I was trying to find more links or mentions that the most in-depth piece of imformation on Marisol Deluna was her original Wikipedia page. Aa1232011 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I'm remaining quite neutral, but of course I'm going to defend an article that I contributed to at one point or another... that's the entire point of Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia quite a while and have edited probably thousands of pages, providing good edits with substance, while remaining neutral, on subjects I know a great deal about or have an interest in. You, on the other hand, seem hellbent on getting this article deleted and I don't completely buy your story of being a Frenchman who just happened upon this page, going back to the whole "personal vandetta" thing mentioned by another editor. --Mr. Brown (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What does my identity have to do with you and a small army of editors not being able to provide proof of significant coverage by independent sources on the subject? Nothing! I don't understand the paranoia going around of a "vendetta" being the reason for the editing and proposed deletion of this article. It was not in keeping with the standards on Wikipedia. Fact. I deleted mention of Deluna in articles where she did not belong, then someone else edited the article, then another person edited a little more, then yet another user nominated the article for deletion, then a little more editing was done by someone else, and then another someone else. What's suspicious about that? For someone who is contributed so much to Wkipedia, you should know that's the regular order of business. The only defense against deletion is to provide sources for verification, make truthful statements that can be checked out by others, and citing where the information comes from. Period. Argue all you want until you are red in the face about a fictional vendetta. Argue the facts, not speculation on other editors identities and motives. But if that's the case, I hate to point out all the new users that have recently signed on and contributed nothing to any other article except in defense of Deluna. There's a good "conspiracy" story is that's your cup of tea.Aa1232011 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I know full well the regular order of business, and having dealt with users of a certain type (I'm sure you know the type!), I know exactly what to do. This article had a few issues before it was gutted by yourself. Entire sections were blanked out, citations included, all of which look entirely appropriate. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'd also add this - I find it highly suspicious that, for somebody you've never met and apparently know "nothing" about, you were able to say as a matter of fact that she was from Cementville in this edit, despite the citations provided saying nothing at all to support that statement. Nevermind the fact that, as I previously mentioned, stating an Alamo Heights person is from Cementville is sort of like a New Orleanian saying a person from the Garden District is from Central City... it's not exactly a compliment. So, yeah, I obviously have some evidence to prove my assertion that you have a personal vandetta against Ms. Deluna. --Mr. Brown (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say? (Again, this where a quote would be helpful.) If it says Cementville, that settles it, even if it doesn't seem particularly complimentary. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's definitely NOT Cementville. I've pulled the articles that were used to cite that sentence at least once before (unfortuantely, they're not accessible online, as the articles date back nearly 10 years), but it's mentioned in the article that she's from Alamo Heights and she recently attended an Alamo Heights school reunion. I'd also point out that there's no reason for Aa1232011 to even know about "Cementville," given that's he's supposedly French, you know what I mean? I could rattle off neighborhoods of my home town, but nobody except people from my home town would even know about those neighborhoods -- this is same sort of thing. --Mr. Brown (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting desperate and I'm getting tired of this. So to clarify your points of view:

1. You believe everyone who edited the article butchered it unjustifiably and then nominated it for deletion because of MY personal vendetta. 2. I personally know Deluna. Which much as your inability to prove she is important, you can't prove or have evidence of either. 3. You question my nationality but then go on to justify Deluna's inclusion in at least four articles that had her named as a citizen of France, Argentina, the US, from Kansas, and San Antonio amongst MANY other inaccuracies. Last time I say this: I did NOT do most of the editing in this article and if you reverse ALL of my edits, you will see this. Whoever was going around adding the name Marisol Deluna to a ton of Wiki articles where there was no reason for her inclusion, was knowingly lying. Period. I already explained my removals from PRIMARILY other articles and my history proves it. Please someone (who is not paranoid) go back to my edits and verify that they were improperly sourced and needed to be deleted? Someone who is not trying to shift focus from the real reasons this is up for deletion can verify that ALL of the times I edited info for this page, it was for a legitimate reason. You obviously know Deluna because in your personal website you also link to her own website. So if anything YOU are the one that has a very personal interest in keeping this page going weather or not you can prove that it merits an article. The link I followed from the Alamo heights High School reunion page was dead but if you visit the website, it very clearly states that the house her father built was in LINCOLN HEIGHTS suburb of Alamo Heights which AT THE TIME DELUNA LIVED THERE, was known as "Cementville". This is the article I used to verify the dates/names: http://www.texasescapes.com/SouthTexasTowns/Cementville-Texas.htm So to end this: Stop harassing me on here and through email about this. Focus on proving the "importance" on Deluna instead of attacking me for doing what was needed. Re-read the original article and ask yourself is just maybe YOU are the one that is wrong and all the other editors that are wasting their time trying to fix YOUR job as a contributor had a logical reason to shorten the article. Aa1232011 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! You're the one who's paranoid and desperate. I've never emailed you - I don't even know who you are or have your e-mail address, so I can't be "harassing" you through e-mail as you so claim and are using such claims, in my opinion, to bolster a point of view in front of the other editors. Tell me, short of being an administrator - how am I supposed to find your e-mail? I certainly don't have WP:Checkuser privileges. I find it very odd that you make these baseless accusations. I also find it very odd that you seem to be very emotionally invested in a subject that you claim that you don't even know... not very objective, in my opinion.
And yeah, I do know the subject of the article, something that I fully and openly disclose. I'm not going to deny that I know her, but I can remain objective and given my long history of edits on everything from highly sensitive politicial articles such as Edwin Edwards to fun articles such as The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) (which at times can be highly sensitive to some people) show that I can remain objective concerning issues that I feel strongly about, even if it's a person I met before in real life, or if it's a political figure I feel strong about, or a family member. I do it everyday in my job as an APA and I can do it on Wikipedia, as I've demonstrated many times before.
I know I'm not wrong - this article shouldn't have been nominated for AFD A7, because the subject's importance, however menial it might be, has been demonstrated in my eyes and clearly in the eyes of other editors.
Stop this nonsense. --Mr. Brown (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The coverage that has been shown so far is insufficient for me to say it meets our inclusion criteria. This says she is a noteworthy Latino design talent, but does not give much more coverage. Taken with all of the the other mentions, and hints of notability, that still does not add up to a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. It is a mention, but hardly more: 37 words about her out of 432 pages in the whole book. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found some sources that would be acceptable for proving the very low bar of importance for the purposes of Wikipedia. Glo mentions Deluna as a "Latino Girl Crush of the Week," a list of "admired" Latin American women, alongside more "famous" Latino women such as Justice Sotomeyer. Housing Works has a press release referring to Deluna as a "celebrity guest," something that I believe she would not be labeled as if she wasn't believed by the organization to be notable or important. The Villager covers one of the many non-profits she has designed for, and ShinyStyle cites some people that wear her scarves, and LULAC's website shows Ms. Deluna presenting one such scarf to Hillary Clinton. Finally, her items are marketed by a number of organizations and municipalities, and listed as official items of some of those organizations and muncipalities: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Mr. Brown (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are either the briefest of mentions or just pure sales material. Sorry, none of this is useful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very little of what you presented establishes notability. Most of it is passing mentions, or not independent. The only item that I would consider as helping towards the notability is the GLO item [5]. Again, it's a very brief item. It helps, but its not enough for me to say notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think a lot of the discussion here is turning around the issue of appreciating to what extent local sources such as La Prensa, San Antonio Magazine or North San Antonio Magazine are reliable enough to establish notability: is is just editorial or is ist backed by reliable fact-checking? I am raising the issue at WP:RSN. Racconish Tk 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 208.54.86.207. A few mentions in local news stories here and there don't make you a notable designer. I checked out the references in the article and they are extremely unimpressive. A few puff pieces, nothing to suggest that she has had any significant success meriting inclusion here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the "original article" read a bit fluffy as per Calliopejen1 in reference to 208.54.86.207, yet notability has been established not as a traditional fashion designer, yet rather one with charitable arms since 1997. Editorials aside, her body of work is impressive and has a signature style. I have posted many design projects here not for the sake of name dropping or showing notability, but rather to link others to her work online and display some of the many ways in which non-profits outreach. Additionally she is mentioned in each as their fashion designer: The Girl Scouts of the USA http://www.girlscoutshop.com/gsusaonline/GSProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=GIRL+SCOUT+LEGACY+SILK+SCARF+-+OFFICIAL, Colonial Dames of America http://www.cdany.org/pages/gift_shop.html, LULAC http://www.lulac.net/about/women/fashionproject2.html, Pilgrims Society (front cover dipicting scarf for their centennial) http://www.amazon.com/Pilgrims-United-States-Centennial-History/dp/1861977263, Holland Dames http://www.thevillager.com/villager_343/dutchremember.html, Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route http://www.heritagetrail.org/W3R-NJ/Collectibles.htm, New York City http://a856-citystore.nyc.gov/1/Gifts/4/CityStore-Exclusives/1389/The-New-York-City-Scarf, National Society of Colonial Dames http://www.nchmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/NCHNwinter08newsletter1.pdf, Alpha Phi Foundation http://issuu.com/alphaphiintl/docs/2006spring, San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo https://secure.sarodeo.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=175&osCsid=ljmamkoqwgxvhio, New York City Housing Authority http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/pr/storecatalogue.shtml, Lansdowne Club http://www.lansdowneclub.com/home/member_services/journal/9---lansdowneclubjournal-09-10.pdf, San Antonio, Texas http://www.sainternationalrelations.org/global-relations, Pequot and American Yacht Clubs respectively http://www.pequotyc.com/default.aspx?p=.NET_ArticleView&qfilter=RSC7204&tview=0&itemID=191428&chgs=&ssid= and Las Comadres Para Las Americas, http://www.lascomadres.org/lco/lco-eng/events/archived/fiestainfo2005.html. Countless others including the Cosmopolitan Club, Lotos Club, New England Society of New York, Junior League, City Garden Club of New York, Daughters of the British Empire, and the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of the City of New York do not advertise or post outside of their membership and rely on tradition mailers or password entry onto their websites, yet she has designed for each and is recognized as such. Msnicki (talk) was correct in beginning this discussion of deletion, as a better article has emerged from it and will grow in time if given an opportunity through verifiable references. Non-profits work differently than traditional fashion outlets or runway shows and are not normally deemed as stylish despite Marisol Deluna's ability to do so. As for brief mentions, keep in mind she was noted (however minor) on her own merit despite not being a household name: http://glo.msn.com/relationships/glos-latina-girl-crushes-6003.gallery, http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Need-About-Latino-History/dp/0452288894/ref=dp_ob_title_bk, http://www.hyundaiusa.com/about-hyundai/diversity/common/assets/Hyundai_Adelante.pdf, http://www.housingworks.org/news-press/detail/housing-works-20th-anniversary-benefit-fashion-for-action-a-sm-ashion-/, http://www.totalprestigemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2345%3Ahousing-works-6th-annual-qdesign-on-a-dimeq-opening&catid=63%3Athe-new-york-sartorialist&Itemid=97 Thank you, NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.155.66 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.1.155.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Aa1232011 (talk) began a "Wikipedia" account alongside the date of deleting full sections of the original article and Marisol Deluna's name from numerous additional articles without requests for additional citations. I wish not to read into his/her intentions yet discount their comments. NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.155.66 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.1.155.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT: More Ad Hominem attacks. Clearly 72.1.155.66 is somebody's "sock puppet account" judging by the fact they signed on two days ago and have contributed nothing to any other article except on here. My "intentions" on Wikipedia are improving articles that need it as can be verified by the many WELL CITED contributions I have made to other articles in my short time editing. I believe the anger from some of these users stems from the fact that my initial edits brought this "puff-piece" to the attention of others who noticed the same issues I did. I unfortunately chose an article to start off with that has some commerical/promotional interests involved in it and for which there is an ongoing attempt to shift the focus of the discussion. Wikipedia clearly states Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons which in this case applied to most of the entire original article as the mutliple edits by multiple editors proves. Sections I blanked out had no citations, included POV and opinions, and quotes and claims that could not be verified in any independent source. I did nothing wrong and I looked for sources before I deleted. The end. I would also like to take the time to point out that the following accounts appeared AFTER the deletion process began and have contributed nothing to any other article other than Marisol Deluna's or voting for a "keep" and should probably be brought to the attention of an administrator: 62.252.182.132 and 72.1.155.66 and HenryJC and 99.141.126.125 and 71.255.139.226 Also, all of the new articles presented (which can't be fully and freely accessed so it's impossible to gage length or depth of coverage) are mostly from the same one local newspaper, shed no new information on the subject, are years apart, or are newsletters to private clubs (some of which Deluna supporters have claimed she is a member in) that are neither published outside membership or can be considered independent as secondary sources as per Wikipedia's standards. Aa1232011 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly stated- I am not a "Wikipedia Editor", yet have followed this particular discussion. I would suggest using QuestPro or LexisNexis to access the content in "Google-News-Archives" before discounting the content found by TimidGuy (talk) to determine the depth of coverage. Some articles state upwards of 600 words when the article is about "Marisol Deluna". (word count is posted on the public articles) The "San Antonio Express-News" is the primary newspaper of the seventh largest city in the USA and Marisol Deluna's hometown, so it is a relevant "Hearst Publication" for finding refernces. As posted by Aa1232011 (talk) she may or may not belong to "Clubs", yet being "Hispanic" would not allow her "Membership" into organizations such as the "Colonial Dames" or "National Colonial Dames of America", "Holland Dames", "Daughters of the British Empire", "Daughters of the American Revolution" or men's only clubs, etc. If anything, "Deluna" being noted and selected to design for such can stake claim to her merit. The new links used (thus far) on this article in formation have improved it. Keep up the good work. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — 66.65.66.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia warns about what's happening in this debate: "Canvassing, Sock puppetry, and Meatpuppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, WikiProjects, or editors are permitted, but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus building process would be considered disruptive editing". A lot of the link spamming, ad hominem attacks, unverifiable claims, and sudden appearance of new users who just "happen" to find this discussion in the last few days (all voting for a keep, all anonymous users, all exceptionally well informed on Deluna's most minute life detail, club membership, and itinerary) are adding a whole new level of dishonesty to this discussion. Something needs to be done about this. Aa1232011 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated, like you, I am now an "Editor" despite having contributed to pages in the past albeit at a snail's pace and under my "IP Address". Rest assured, the only "Socks" I deal with are those worn on my feet! Reasonably I understand your concerns, yet after reading posts by newly established editors like us- My hope is that we can work and grow together! As for unsigned postings, some have proven to be helpful in content links (for me) in finding verifiable articles which I will scan and post for all editors/contributors to access. In certain circles, she is respected so Marisol Deluna has many supporters due to the nature of her non-profit work whether this article remains or is removed. Simply stay on course with this topic and other articles of your interest. Enjoy! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the community Elizabeth! As previously noted, my main gripe was people signing up just to make personal attacks or vote with no intention of contributing to anything else in a meaningful way. I have had my motives and intentions questioned for being a relatively new user as well so I apologize if it felt like I was doing that to you. I do believe people of different generations, life circles, and backgrounds contributing is what makes Wikipedia so all-encompassing and dynamic. Happy editing!Aa1232011 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be the first time an AfD has attracted a bunch of SPAs. The closing admin should be able to see past the 4 SPAs (Alteran1, HenryJC, 72.1.155.66 and 66.65.66.144) to realize there's still no consensus. The rest of the !votes are still quite divided, with 6 favoring delete (Msnicki, Aa1232011, 208.54.86.207, Whpq, Calliopejen1 and frankie) and 6 favoring keep (Bbb23, Drmies, Mr Brown, Racconish, Qrsdogg and Alan the Roving Ambassador). Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. It just seems to be getting out of hand here! Every comment and opinion is being disected and attacked. Admittedly, the fact that several of these one time users started throwing accusations at me has turned this debate personal for me and I could've just ignored them but I imagine it's disruptive to others too. Aa1232011 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- As noted, I am not a "Wikipedia Editor", yet if I were, my opinion would be valued? That is absolutely unfair. I find "Marisol Deluna" (and others yet to be commented on Wikipedia) worthwhile. In the true spirit of this encyclopedia, I would think editors would only want people who are passionate and knowledge based about topics (editors or non-editors who review vast or specific topics be it pro and con) to contribute. What I supplied is helpful based on "fact". Aa1232011 mentioned the lack of use of "Google-News-Archives"http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marisol+deluna+archives&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&pq=marisol%20deluna%20archives&xhr=t&q=marisol+deluna&cp=15&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=marisol+deluna+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e63c8a38fa0aa9df&biw=1173&bih=706&bs=1. This is his/her opinion yet gave a mere suggestion to reading each in full (and a means in which to do so) as I have read each and plan to add to the "Marisol Deluna" article when time permits shortly. She is a fashion designer who is notable by way charitable avenues- not Fifth Avenue. Do I have to be an "Editor" to be credible? I feel as if you have just directed me and others to the back of a bus. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't meant to be personal but it is the way things work on Wikipedia. There's a good explanation of how and why you're encountering greater skepticism at WP:SPA. Also, you will have more or less influence arguing for keep depending on how well you demonstrate that the (somewhat technical) notability guidelines at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CORPDEPTH have been met. Realistically, that means you're at a disadvantage if you're new and haven't had time to digest them. Msnicki (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- Dear, this seems reasonable as rules are rules and truth is truth. Wondering- If I add information to the "Marisol Deluna" article that have been found in the reliable sources identified by TimidGuy (talk) and others- Can I do this to add verifiable value and prove additional nobility without being an editor? Also, something I noticed in the "Rules of Wikipedia" is not all reliable sources have to be posted online to be credible some references go further back than when the internet has been in daily use. Please advise. I will do my best. Thank you. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone is free edit. But again, I think you may find it helpful to read the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. The debate isn't about whether there's enough information in the article or whether it's sufficiently impressive. The issue being debated here is all and only about whether there are sufficient reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability. If you have sources, you should add them. If you have copies and can scan them, you can post them to sites like scribd.com so we can all read them. But without sources, simply adding additional information to the article is unlikely to be helpful. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Msnicki (talk)- Dear, "Thank you" for being so helpful to me and surely others! (Especially for mentioning the scanning site) I will tend to this by week's end yet might ask additional questions if needed. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not our own personal standards, rules, and regulations we are citing. I was making an observation that Wikipedia's own policies frown upon because of the potential for misuse and abuse. I imagine all of their guidelines and codes of conduct were determined precisely to keep people from negatively impacting a vote or an article out of malice. Try to imagine if suddenly 100 new users showed up to this debate tomorrow and all voted "Delete" who signed on just for the purpose of swaying the vote. There are two sides to every story.Aa1232011 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aa1232011 (talk)- I am happy to read that you wrote that "there are two sides to every story" as this page clearly defends the merit or deletion of a woman that although is not valued by all is appreciated by others. Thank you. Elizabeth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.66.144 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. In any situation, the same information, sources, and subject matter will be valued, interpreted, and processed differently by everyone. Both sets of opinions matter and are needed in the debate. Know that an experienced, neutral, and uninvolved admin or editor will have the final say on all that's been presented. It's not "personal" or a reflection on Deluna per se, but more specifically the sources of information available. Thank you for remaining polite with your words. Aa1232011 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are reliable, but the content amounts to very little. There isn't anything else to be found other than what the article already includes, and it only serves to verify the information, with only a few claims of significance. The rest is a very generous biography of the subject - frankie (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just for the record, I'm not related to the IP (66.65.66.144) who is identifying herself as Elizabeth Brown. No relation. Just figured I'd put that out there in case anybody thinks there's shenanigans. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not related to "Mr. Brown", or atleast not that I know of! Anyhow, as of today I have a "User Page" and on my way to assisting this article and others in due time. Grateful for other editor's helpful suggested as noted in this thread. Currently I am collecting reliable independent secondary sources to increase visibility to Marisol Deluna with articles which will be scanned onto scribd.com as suggested. Thank you for my inclusion.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2011 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Deluna