Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana


 * 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. I find the deletion arguments more persuasive- especally WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, despite this being numerically even, hence I'm closing it in favour of deletion. Courcelles (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Debrahlee Lorenzana

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This woman, who claims to have been fired by Citibank for being too attractive, is very much known only for this single event (WP:EVENT) and is not notable in any other ways. The article is written in slightly POV-way, but the main problem is that she simply is not notable apart from her claim to have been too attractive Jeppiz (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Update to nomination After the article was nominated, it has degenerated even further, it now features a library of video links with videos such as
 * - Debrahlee “Too Hot For Citi” Lorenzana Explains Why She Wanted To Be “Tits On A Stick”
 * - Banking beauty Debrahlee Lorenzana had two boob jobs, wanted to be stacked like Playboy Playmate
 * At the same time, her original claim to fame remains completely unsourced. When I nominated the article, it was at least plausible to assume that there was some, albeit very small, controversy about her exit from Citibank. Now it looks like nothing more than a girl claiming she has been fired for being "too hot" while seeing to it that sexy pictures and videos of herself make it to the press. This is a non-notable person trying to be famous, and that's all there is too it. The quality of the article is extremely bad and POV, and the huge collection of videos of a kind rarely seen on Wikipedia doesn't exactly add to it.Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as she is part of a newsworthy event and most probably she will find a way to make fame and money out of this news-event. As such this article should stay so it can be updated and thus become a growing source of information. I agree this single POV should be editted so this article is a encyclopedia worth article --Erik van Luxzenburg 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanluxzenburg (talk • contribs)
 * Well, the Wikipedia policy for notability is very clear: being part of one newsworthy event is not enough to satisfy notability, please read WP:EVENT where the policy is explained. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL). The possibility that someone might become famous is not an argument for having an article.
 * The policies are very clear, to have a Wikipedia page you should be notable and notable for more than just one single event. Ms Lorenzana does not satisfy that very basic requirement.Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite the correct policies...WP:EVENT refers to events rather than individuals. The current article is meant to serve as a biography. The subject, Debrahlee Lorenzana, passes WP:BASIC due to the extensive mainstream media coverage over the past week. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit and I would like to encourage you to make revisions to the Debrahlee Lorenzana's article as you see fit.Smallman12q (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete — This is very small potatoes, an obscure office dispute. Article can be written if the event ever swells to notability. --O&#39;Dea (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Preserve this article! It is a watershed event for women in the corporate arena who are subjected to various forms of discrimination. Her pedigree to fame is comparable to an American Idol contestant. In South America, her case is being used (maybe falsely and maybe not) to illustrate American discrimination standards against hispanics. It has been said by my leadership that if a beautiful Latina can be discriminated against in the land of beautiful Americans, then no immigrant can succeed. We are aware she is a Puerto Rican, which is an American citizen, so her case has the possibility to expose those American double standards. She is not so much notable as her situation and, because the media has sniffed out a story and brought the case to light, she has become notable.Englishjames (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.223.85 (talk)
 * O'Dea: Without debating notability of the subject, I need to say that your standards of "small" must be gargantuan. On a slightly more serious note, 4 million g-hits on a very fresh case suggest either some organized PR campaign or an emerging meme-of-the-week. I wouldn't be surprised if the lady lands a high-profile career in the media. East of Borschov (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (delete): The mass media smell a sexy story with a spicy conjunction of multiple tittilating dimensions concerning power, money, dramatic curves (could I have some water, please?), and a well-tailored wardrobe, so they swarm on it for reasons of narrative juice for sales and ratings purposes, which are unreliable indicators of true importance (the Village Voice said "Lorenzana's story is made for TV", meaning she and her tight, tailored suits are so camera ready, baby). While the event is undetermined, it is impossible to establish notability just yet. For now, this remains an unresolved office dispute, where the employer counterargues work problems, the truth of which remains to be established by the arbitrator. In addition, this cannot become "a watershed event for women" as has been claimed, above, because no notable legal precedent can be established from this incident since Lorenzana is contractually bound to arbitration, so her complaint cannot be heard in court, because she was forced to surrender her legal right to sue her employer by signing a mandatory-arbitration clause as a condition of her employment: the fact that this employer's hiring condition is legal — ignored by business-friendly legislators — is the really big story everyone is missing; let's see a Wikipedia article about that! This is just a burning news story because Lorenzana is a red-hot babe; the mass media wouldn't pay much attention if she was plain because most of the public literally wouldn't look at the story. Sizzling beauty can confer many advantages but it is not yet a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. --O&#39;Dea (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, we have established guidelines here at Wikipedia. Both users above who want to keep it seem to be unaware of those guidelines, as their comments are nothing but crystalballing WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, she might land a high-profile career in media and this might have consequences for disrcimination in the workplace. At this stage, however, that is pure speculation. Wikipedia isn't a news service, we add notable events after they have become notable. The relevant question is not how notable this lady might be in the future, only how notable she is now. And she is a perfect example of a person notable for only one event.Jeppiz (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does not WP:HOTTIE indisputably apply here?--Milowent (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one! :-) However, as one of the users who want to keep the article hasn't contributed anything else than the comment here and the other user also is very new, I'm afraid the irony might be lost - or that they cannot tell which guidelines are genuine :-) But yes, this is a very clear case of WP:HOTTIE, I'm the first to admit thatJeppiz (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Who are we kidding, WP:RECENTism. (But I could be swayed by the arguments of WP:HOTTIE above) Padillah (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
 * Keep- As the article's original author I vote keep. Nonetheless, I would like to validate my stance as follows...
 * WP:BASIC states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,  and independent of the subject. It is my understanding that as the person at hand, Debrahlee Lorenza, has indeed been the subject of of secondary source materials which qualify for WP:RS as this google news search would show.
 * This article was nominated under the auspice that it fails WP:ONEEVENT. WP:ONEVENT states:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
 * As she is the main focus of the event, she deserves her own article. In addition, I'd like to point out that there continues to be mainstream coverage on her as this CBS video from yesterday shows.
 * As for the slight POV...I tried to be neutral.Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole argument above builds on the assumption that this event is notable. Why would it be. Throughout the world, there are hundreds of similar cases each year, former employees suing the former employer. The only reason the yellow press has picked up this one is that the former employee not only looks great but also decided to pose for some sexy pictures to go with the store. So I argue that neither the event nor the individual is notable here, and I have yet to see an argument for why the opposite would be true, except for WP:HOTTIE.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the press has decided to take notice of this individual is what makes her notable. Once again, I will reiterate what WP:BASIC states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Debrahlee Lorenzana has indeed and continues to be a subject in published secondary source material which qualifies for WP:RS.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. If news coverage was the sole basis for judging if anyone is notable, there would be no point in having WP:ONEEVENT or WP:RECENT. What these policies explicitly states is that being mentioned in the news is not automatically enough.
 * I find it rather telling about this debate that you decide to pick an article about her having a boob-job to support her claim to fame. Once again, if she wasn't a WP:HOTTIE nobody would care about this, as there's nothing even remotely notable about the case itself.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, WP:RECENT is not policy. The article entitled "Banking beauty Debrahlee Lorenzana had two boob jobs, wanted to be stacked like Playboy Playmate" was written by the Daily News (New York) which qualifies under WP:RS and is thus an applicable source. Here is what WP:EVENT states:

When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate...
 * As the coverage is focused primarily on the individual's role within the event, an article to cover the individual is appropriate.Smallman12q (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true - but that builds on the assumption that the event is notable. She isn't. She had her 15 minutes of fame around last weekend when the yellow press published her story and her juicy pictures. That's all there's to it. Due to her good looks and pictures she took she was briefly mentioned in the media. The buzz about her has already passed. Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an aversion towards ambiguity...could you please explain what you mean by what you meant with "Yes, that's true"? I would also like to point out that there were articles published about her today, albeit fewer, but still there such as this one from fox and this one from CBS, both of which fall under WP:RS.Smallman12q (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again you demonstrate that the few articles about her in the last days are all related to her breasts. There a LOT of relatively hot girls with implants that are mentioned more frequently in the media and over a longer period of time without having articles about them. The fact of the matter is that she was featured in the press for a few days due to her provocative pictures and her unconfirmed claim that she was fired for "being too hot". It looks very much like self-promotion and all interest in her case seems to be gone already, the only focus that remains is on her breasts, as your latest posts have all demonstrated.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, this story never stops giving!!! Veoh comments: "4 days ago -- 0:12-0:29 is this Debrahlee Lorenzana???" "2 days ago - there goes the lawsuit."  The notability of this woman keeps expanding!--Milowent (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of which section of the torso the media decides to focus its attention to, Debrahlee Lorenzana has thus far been subject to a minimum of 9 days of mainstream coverage and continues to be: 1, 2, 3. And as per WP:BASIC "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." As Debrahlee has been subjected to secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, she is thus notable enough for her own article.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, she's nowhere close that notability. Compare with Claudia Lynx, who we recently deleted . She is model for different brands, played the lead part in a film, has a music career and took part in a West Wing episode. And is much more of a WP:HOTTIE than Lorenzana, yet she was deleted. The yellow papers have a whole bunch of girls whose boobs they write about, we don't have articles for them all nor should we. Granted, if she does become regular in the media, for whatever reason, the story would change but that is just crytalballing. Your creating this article was very much premature - Wikipedia is not a news agency. Less than ten days after she went to the media with her juicy pictures and her unfounded claim, interest in her is gone. As it has not even been confirmed that she was fired for the reason she claims, quite the opposite, this looks like nothing more than a vain attempt for a girl to capture some headlines, and I don't understand why Wikipedia should help her. Explain again what is notable her, please.62.78.175.191 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL concerns speculation, which does appear to be not relevant to this article. Rather, the nomination is based around the concern that Debrahlee Lorenzana is not notable and fails WP:EVENT. She is notable in that it is unusual for a Wall Street gender discrimination case to get attention as businessweek points out.
 * WP:BASIC states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. You suggest that Claudi Lynx is far more notable than Lorenzana, yet a google news search returns 0 results. A google news search for Debrahlee Lorenzana shows a weeks worth of media coverage. As per WP:BASIC, Debrahlee Lorenzana is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If she has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, please point out your case.Smallman12q (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now per great breakdown and policy interpretation by Smallman12q. I believe this indeed is a very significant event that must be recorded forever, that this happens in 2010 at a major bank. "Please quit coming to work because when we see you we are distracted and cannot work because we want to ...... you." What the heck is that?! Are these people orangutans? Do not delete this, leave on here for all time eternity. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not? There's nothing even remotely significant here, former employees suing their former employers is very common. In this case, the former employee happens to look rather stunning and has posed for some provocative pictures so the media, the yellow press in particular, has jumped at it. That doesn't make the person notable in any sense.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest userfying this article. That way we don't loose the pertinent information should this turn out to be significant at a later date. Padillah (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is notable because it received plenty of news coverage around the world. It doesn't matter that this happens with other cases all the time.  This got worldwide media attention, and since it happened at such a major worldwide bank, other companies will now take notice and perhaps change their policies accordingly.   D r e a m Focus  05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again a user arguing for keep based on WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know if this will have any influence on companies or not, you're just speculating about what might happen in the future. I might be the prime minister of France, should we have an article about me?Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment None of the keep arguments, ultimately, are holding up. I agree with deletion. 108.6.2.66 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Hot girls easily are written about, so what? She was not famous ten days ago, she is forgotten after one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.147.140 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we explain Sarah Palin, then?--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though the above remark is irrelevant to this discussion, there was a comparison of Sarah Palin and Debrahlee Lorenzana in this Village Voice blog today.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This article is widely searched for. We should keep it to present an neutral view on the discussion.
 * Keep -- I am going with a keep here because there is significant coverage of this person, actually unbelievable amounts of coverage of this person. I am surprised that no one has cited WP:BLP1E as why the article should not stay, but that would be the most appropriate policy reason to advocate for deletion.  But I think she wants the attention, obviously, and would not object to this article existing.  If deletion is the outcome, consider where, if anywhere, a short blurb on this event could be placed elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether this should be all over the news, it has been to the extent that it transcends WP:BLP1E. I wish it weren't so....Vartanza (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I considered closing this as a delete, despite a few more !votes in favor of keeping, but think it would be better to cast an !vote and let somebody else act upon the rationale. Personally, I find this persons position to be nothing more than news. She is a momentary flash in the pan person who is trying to create something via a flash in the pan.  If this person is truly notable, then there will be a court case/settlement that makes it so.  She will only gain true lasting nobility if this actually materializes into something, otherwise she will be forgotten once the hupla is gone.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:11, 14 June 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.