Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina M. Santiago


 * 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   delete. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Christina M. Santiago

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article reads like self-promotion. Has doubtful reliable references and this picture, er, proves it is self-promo IMO.  Diego Grez  what's up? 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Puffery and advertising. I have a new rule of thumb that business bios written about "Mr. So-and-So" or "Mrs. Whatsherface" rather than using the unadorned surname are usually the product of genuflecting underlings fulfilling a corporate mission. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it did get my BS Detector beeping, repulsive cheesy photo notwithstanding... Carrite (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't beleive the holding hands spinning is included in and Encylpedia! haha fails WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for pufferym advertising, and self-promotion. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.  Diego Grez  what's up?  01:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Because not sourced to secondary sources to establish notability. Almost all WP articles on living people are, based on my observations, either self-promoting or attack articles -- this one is just more obvious. Borock (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are lots of reasons why this should be deleted, but I shall say keep out of sympathy Jimzah32 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — Jimzah32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment That's not a valid deletion reason. If we were going to keep articles "out of sympathy", then Wikipedia would be full of uninteresting John Does articles.  Diego Grez  what's up?  20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I might have to do my homework a little more on the subject but she is notable because she's an author with Latina Magazine... the other stuff with her company, personal life and the Fortune 500 stuff is true because it was on CNBC... but its just fill-in found on the Internet... But I don't appreciate that just because I wrote Mrs. Santiago on the page that it should be interpreted that I work for her... I just wrote it to imply she was married and be respectful at the same time... besides I didn't want it to be confused with the location. Yamariel  —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Please review our notability guideline. "It should be interpreted that I work for her" : Wikipedia is not a spam arena. Take these articles somewhere else, Mr. Sam.  Diego Grez  what's up?  20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't manipulate my words.... I'm saying that it was silly... secondly I'm not this woman's husband. You can redirect that message to him... I'm a third party outside of knowing these people... But I'll stand-up for my work... This is no different than if I were writing about some reporter from the Washington Post. Yamariel  —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
 * No, the article reads as advertising by itself, and that "some reporter from the Washington Post" must be most notable than Christina.  Diego Grez  what's up?  17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reporter for a major magazine or newspaper is considered notable... largely because their words edited and the articles they write are seen by thousands of people. Mrs. Santiago is a writer for Latina Magazine which is also found on Wikipedia.  The presumption that no reporter can be notable unless they are written about or spoken about outside of the magazine, newspaper, website or television network they work for is silly... Wikipedia isn't just for the most notable, but the notable in general.Yamariel
 * You jumped to quickly to delete this page.... if you had a problem with the wording you should have either edited yourself or put up and sign telling me and others that this article lacked so necessary things. Yamariel —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 5 August 2010 (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.