Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Amor Torres (3rd 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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

This article was edited by multiple COI editors, it was later reviewed by non-connected editors who removed all promotional material and self-published sources. There is a discussion on the talk page trying to find reliable sources, for more than a week, it seems nobody managed to find enough reliable sources that are worth for writing anything more than a one-line article. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Although technically this article qualifies, I can't bring myself to vote for deletion. She's a Princess! And a beauty queen! I honestly believe we do have one reliable source, The Star. Its reliability has been questioned, and there is discussion going on about this but it has not reached a conclusion. So I think it's too early to say that we have no sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Her "title" doesn't seem to be legitimate, as there is no credible source backing her claim to royal status (and various self-publicated sources have contradicted each other by calling her "Her Highness", "Her Royal Highness" "Queen", "Princess", and "Crown Princess". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kendall-K1 and Ronz have put a lot of work into finding and critiquing sources. I accept The Star may be reliable but even with that there's just not enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk)


 * Delete A huge amount of effort put into this by conscientious editors despite one of the COI editors admitting that the subject had paid for its creation. Regardless of if the Star is found to be reliable or not sometimes RS are wrong. Her title is a vanity one and her organisation is a self seeking publicity machine. Lyndaship (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete We've found nothing that qualifies as a reliable, independent source demonstrating notability. Instead, we've found that Torres is quite the self-publicist, often using vanity or grandiose claims of accomplishments. Sometimes she manages to get a local publicists to echo her claims or publicize her latest events. At very best, it's all NOTNEWS and SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, quite a publicity machine. Even if the Star source should be judged reliable, one such source would not be sufficient for WP:GNG. It is quite clear that she is not a princess, the talk page discussion shows that it's simply a title she uses, with various permutations that would not be possible if she had an actual royal title. The beauty queen title appears to be from a non-notable pageant; there are many such in the world. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as almost all of the sources seem to be self-published or published by people closely associated with her. Her royal status seems to be fabricated and I have yet to see a credible independent source regarding her philanthropic work. Her beauty pageant work seems minor, and she is not notable as a fitness instructor. If anything she's a fauxcialite. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt for the aforementioned reasons and the likelihood that COI editors will recreate it in short order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Princess" Maria Amor Torres lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Bombardment of sources that has been presented is a bunch of non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2018 (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.