Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margo Rey


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Margo Rey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

At first sight this looks to be a valid article, but the references are all primary sources except one minor appearance on a TV show. IMDB, never a reliable source, shows that she was a voice of a dog in a minor production. The article appears to be intended to create notability for this singer rather than demonstrate notability. Wikipedia may not be used in this manner. If she gains notability then an article may remain here, otherwise not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability. Google and Google News searches turned up no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Any mention is trivial, routine, tangential. This appears to be yet another promotional article created by editors connected in some way with her husband and his business. A similar article on a person associated with her husband was found to be based on fabricated biographical data. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as with her husbands business partner this is all fakery. noclador (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure if the term "fakery" above was intended to indicate that it's promotional or a set of falsehoods... The facts are actually accurate, but it's poorly referenced by external, reliable sources, so I would expect it will be deleted.  Vertium  When all is said and done  17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the "fakery" is probably misapplied to this article. but on her husband's article, some account apparently diliberately conflated two people of the same name and claimed the other's achievments as part of their own. lets try again. the same editor who created much of this article's fluffy contents was found to have, apparently purposefully, conflated her husband's fiance's business partner with another person of the same name and claimed the other's achievements.-- The Red Pen of Doom  18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated this article substantively - and while it won't be nominated for FA any time soon, it's a whole lot better documented than it was when I started. There's no shortage of self-promotion from the subject of this article, her "husband" and the record company, but I believe I've found enough sources to back up most of the info there.  Some of it, such as the fact that she was the lead singer of an all-girl rock band in the 80s is impossible to find a source on, though it's in her bio.  It is my understanding that they are not yet married, but I don't have any source refuting it and all the interviews they do say that they're married, so I've left it that way.  Do with it what you will...  Thanks.   Vertium  When all is said and done  21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came across the AfD to which TRPOD was speaking and as I mentioned, no shortage of self-promotion going on by the record company!  Vertium  When all is said and done  22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with changes I've made (as noted above), I believe someone who has released 3 songs which have hit the top 20 on a Billboard chart and is noted as someone to watch passes WP:GNG. The content about her background activities is allowable by WP:SELFPUB.  It appears that this AfD may have been added due to a halo effect because of the "business partner" mentioned by the nom and supported by others and while I'm the first to acknowledge that notability cannot be inherited, neither can "lack of notability".  "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", is described above as a "minor production" though it  was produced by Disney with a budget of $20m and total gross of $143m, included Drew Barrymore, Jamie Lee Curtis and George Lopez, so I disagree with that characterization.  I imagine that if someone footnoted one of those stars with a reference to that film, there may be no objection to its use as a "minor production".  I believe this article now passes muster and should be kept.    Vertium  When all is said and done  14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * weak keep - it appears that before she adopted the professional name of "Margo Rey", she did musicals such as Loesser's "Señor Discretion Himself" and the stage version of "Selena Forever" under her birth name "Margo Reymundo" for which there are what appear to be numerous although brief (seemingly positive) reviews behind paywalls. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * my 'keep' is 'weak', because conflating two individuals with a similar name is what was behind the "fakery" of the other article. do we know for certain that "Margo Rey" and "Margo Reymundo" are the same person? -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I meant by my comment about the halo effect. It seems as though there is a concern that the same people wrote the article just because these two happen to now be in business together, which is merely a suspicion, not based on any evidence yet offered.  The question should be do we know for certain that the same people were involved in writing the two articles?   Instead, I believe it's rather easy to connect Margo Rey and Margo Reymundo (name similarity aside), by looking at Reymundo's 2004 website and Rey's current website.  Unless we believe there was some plot in 2004 to create a website so that in 2012 Wikipedia readers could be tricked, I think the photographic evidence supports that they're the same person.  Further, one of the citations in the article (see last 3 paragraphs) tells the story of how Ron White met Margo Rey, through her brother, Alex Reymundo.  Thanks.   Vertium  When all is said and done  10:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * its not "merely a suspicion" that the articles were edited by the same people, the edit history shows (showed before the other was deleted) that they were edited by the same accounts. It was following the edit histories that led to this article. --  The Red Pen of Doom  11:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I truly do not wish to become pedantic (though sometimes I simply cannot help myself), but in the interest of accuracy, I want to point out that no such mention of the other article or it's edit history was made by the nominator, nor did the nominator explain how or why xhe came to the conclusion, so I'm unsure of whether that's what led to this article or not. The first mention of the other article was by Dominus Vobisdu in support of deletion.  Given all that, if you're aware of some information that's not included in the nomination as to how the nominator arrived at this article, I'm happy to take your word for it as I cannot see the edit history for the deleted article.  In any case, how they came to the article is irrelevant, because even if they were edited by the same people - which could easily raise suspicion and cause investigation of another article - the article is no longer in the same condition it was when the nomination was made.  The keep or delete decision should be made based not on what the article was at the time of nomination, but rather on what it is today.   Thanks.  Vertium  When all is said and done  15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * responded on talk. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've re-examined the article and still find it lacking in reliable independent sources. Except for the Vegas Sun article, which is light on information about Rey and is actually just an extended concert announcement, the rest are trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like. My own searches turned up nothing substantial in independent sources. The publicity material originating from her husband's company seems to be puffery. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (without prejudice to more genuine, independent WP:RS being added from established media). Blogs, listings, and reviews on theatre ticketing  sites are not  reliable. Interviews are not  reliable because the content  is supplied by  the subject. This only  leaves on  source  which  alone does not  amount  to  significant in-depth coverage from  multiple sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: You don't find Billboard to be a reliable source? Vertium  When all is said and done  12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable, yes. But it contributes little information and little notability. She had two songs that made it into the top-twenty on the list for "adult contemporary", a relatively minor list. If she made it onto the overall list, or the major lists for pop, rock, etc., I would be more impressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would find it helpful if there was greater consistency in your comments. First you state there's only one reliable source and relegate all other noted sources as "trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like".  And I have to admit, I'm not even sure what you mean by "routine".   When someone reviews a performance in a newspaper it is neither puffery nor a concert notification.  It does, however stand as verification that the individual does, in fact, perform to paying crowds.  When asked, you acknowledge that there is actually more than one reliable source, though apparently Billboard didn't count in the first comment because, by your assessment, it's only a  "minor" list. Please help me find the WP guideline or policy that indicates which Billboard charts are notable and which are not.  Also, I'd like some help in understanding which policy says that only those songs which achieve a certain ranking on those notable charts count.  I understand that the Adult Contemporary doesn't "impress" you, but it might interest you to know that the current Adult Contemporary chart includes songs by Kelly Clarkson, Train, Adele (2 songs), Katy Perry, Colbie Caillat and One Direction, none of which I can imagine are "trivial", regardless of your personal assessment.  The lists focus on the formats used by radio stations.  To dismiss AC would be something akin to dismissing the "Classical" list because it's not Top 40 - there are hundreds of AC radio stations, serving millions of listeners, so I think it's as notable as any other format.  Further, someone who has had 3 songs at a "significant" (deliberately avoiding a specific number) level a Billboard chart seems clearly notable.  Lastly, I completely understand (and support!) your reaction to her business partner's article.  You'll note that I made no effort to defend that article, because there were zero RS.  This is not the same.  This article should be evaluated on its own and leave the aura of how it got to be here in the first place behind.   Vertium  When all is said and done  14:31, 22 August 2012 (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.