Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Amor Torres (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maria Amor Torres
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Princess" Maria Amor Torres lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. Her "charity" is a scam where suckers buy "awards" with donations and favours. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck section that's not really pertinent. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are number of US Congresswomen and heads of other countries are getting involved with her, if she is a fraud, definitely they will not. They know whether her CHARITY is a Scam or not better than others. If the honorees are going to fund for various of her projects, let her be creative to bridge the gap between the poor and the affluent. Why there is hunger in third world countries, it is because more than the lack of distribution channels, there are people to criticize the initiators.Kailasher (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    05:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I tried to improve slightly with another reference. I think article should be expanded. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Her planned documentary television series, The Travelling Princess, documents her charity funded travels and meeting wannabe humanitarians around the world. That article is more PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Star is a perfectly reputable newspaper and as such is a reliable source. You're entitled to think whatever you like of her but, alas, you are not considered a reliable source. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's so the Star make One decent ref, that's not multiple. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Newsfirst and Nation reports are also sufficient.  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "News"first is her talking about herself. The Nation press release says sod all about her. Still a lack of any INDEPENDENT depth of coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Keep - Its improved since nomination for deletion with more than one reliable sources Kanatonian (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Since nomination One source has been added, not multiple. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep Per Kanatonian. Deletion does not serve the project". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Kanatonian it has improved after nomination after some good work by Wikimandia.But the article needs further work but would prefer to keep at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For all those rabbiting "per", which sources are reliable and sufficient coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As Wikimandia noted you are not a reliable source for your finding, "rabbiting" and other; your only intention is to remove the article on Wikipedia since you haven't notified me of the CSD (just before this AfD) as requested in the template.Kailasher (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing you say here is relevant to this discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why it is not relevant, please explain why you haven't inform me of the CSD?Kailasher (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you are a shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you are not a reliable source. I have explained enough on the top. If you are firm on your stance you should not have back tracked.Kailasher (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What??? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have deleted your statement after my explanation.Kailasher (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discuss sources please not character assess your oponants. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable enough, only we need expansion of the article. A few possible anti-Filipino people can't determine whether she is notable or not.Kailasher (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a stub. As such it is perfectly acceptable and it also does appear notable enough. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 01:51, 22 November 2015 (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.