Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna (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 Delete per clear consensus in the discussion that the subject of this BLP fails the general notability guideline. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reasons to Delete:

Subject of page has no demonstrable cultural significance. She is a fashion designer "best known for scarves", with no discernible importance or visibility in the industry or culture as a whole. History shows the entry was likely created as self-promotion and autobiography. Sources being used and defended by editors on page are mainly small circulation papers in her hometown (San Antonio, TX), likely solicited by the subject herself or her agents, and fail to demonstrate actual impact in her field; there is no coverage by knowledgeable authorities in fashion or culture, or mentions in even a single serious fashion or arts magazine, journal, book, website, or elsewhere. Primary "pro" page editor ElizabethCB123 (likely the subject of page using simple "Duck" test from history and talk pages) is currently temporarily blocked for creating numbers of socks (which have been permanently blocked), and admin review concluded meat puppets are likely link here. Please notice a a majority of "keep" comments on last deletion nomination review are by blocked editors, exposed socks, and suspected meats.Tao2911 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only sources are all from local, hometown newspapers and all appear to be PR plants.  While the publications themselves may be generally reliable and the information reported may be accurate (e.g.,that the subject was raised in San Antonio but now lives in NYC, where she designs scarves), I do not find these sources reliable in establishing that she is a notable fashion designer.  What, frankly, does a local interest news reporter know about fashion designers?  Probably nothing.  I'll believe Deluna is a notable fashion designer when an actual fashion editor (e.g., anyone at any of these) says she is.  Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There was clearly silly stuff in the last deletion discussion, but I only counted four 5 out of 11 keep votes as questionable—not a majority. Jesanj (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you're doing that count, but in any case, I don't count MrBrown as an independent editor (he worked on the Deluna page, admits to knowing Deluna, and defended the now blocked users), and he's one of the more vociferous defenders in that discussion, and others. In any case, socks wildly skewed that discussion, acting like a defacto smokescreen, and made an objective finding harder to discern.Tao2911 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Commennt. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I've stated that I have met Deluna. I've also met Bob Barker - does this mean I shouldn't edit his article? --Mr. Brown (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting words in your mouth. You claim to know the subject of the article. You are free to edit any page, even one about yourself (within bounds). But your vigorous defense of her notability is perhaps colored by your knowing her - since most of us who don't can't seem to find good grounds for notability. You objectivity is being questioned. That's all. And you are now linked now to a posse of sock and meat puppets. Honestly, I don't think you are one. I just think you are misguided in having long supported and defended Deluna in the creation, defense, and superficial improvements on what is pretty obviously an entry devoted to self-promotion and (in the past) autobiography. Let's leave it at that.Tao2911 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There you go again. "Knowing" and "meeting" are two entirely different concepts. And the only reason I'm linked to a posse of sock and meat puppets (which are on both sides of the debate) is because you keep linking them to me with no evidence, direct or circumstantial. I would ask that it cease. --Mr. Brown (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not count MrBrown as a questionable vote. I counted HenryJC, Muldo, 72.1..., and 66.6... Jesanj (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you counted ECB123? Seriously? She is pretty clearly the subject of the page, and now blocked as the generator of ALL these proven socks. So that would make at least 6 of 11 by your named count, that I would dismiss. A majority.Tao2911 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add User:Alteran1, who I tagged last time as an WP:SPA. Msnicki (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:66.65.66.144 = ECB so yes I counted that vote as questionable. @Msnicki -- yes, you're right Alteran1 should be counted. That brings it up to 5 of 11 in my count. Jesanj (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think Tao's arguing (and I agree) that you also need to include ECB in your count as someone not playing by the rules, not trying to build a better encyclopedia, there only to manipulate the outcome. This is the same editor, after all, who tried claiming Deluna should make a short list with Kissinger, Haig and Cronkite and who is now blocked.  So in reality, only 5 of the 11 editors arguing to keep appear to have been acting in good faith and of those, two of the keep WP:!VOTEs offered only WP:JUSTAPOLICY.  It made the last AfD discussion meaningless.  Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indifferent. There's a group of people that are going to do what they want with this article. I don't give a damn anymore. Keep or delete, just do what you want with it. I'm out. --Mr. Brown (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  —Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Page has been used for puffery in the past - but with no actual notability established (NYT does mention her marriage, which would help if there were some other coverage, which, quite unfortunately, is lacking.  I really try to find people to be sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I read the NYTimes this very morning in fact. There are 4 full pages of wedding announcements - 3 or 4 dozen. Every Sunday. Subjects provide their own bio info. It isn't a news source, or any measure of whether or not she is recognized in any way. Just to punctuate your point.Tao2911 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This link provides instructions from the NY Times as to "How to Submit a Wedding Announcement" and links to a form to be used . Per the WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent" with a footnote "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability". Based on this information, and barring any evidence to the contrary, the link to the NY Times article in this and several other articles should probably be replaced with a "citation needed" template at best, and the text which relied on that link would be reasonably removed at some point if other, independent sourcing is not provided. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had in fact removed that citation and replaced with 'CN' tag, twice, only to have that reversed by Jesanj. Wishing to avoid an edit war, I let it stand. Perhaps you can make the edit, Joe. I support it. And as looks likely, if the page is deleted, the issue should be solved for good.Tao2911 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it meets points 1 through 5 on self-published material, that's why I think it is OK. Jesanj (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of Significant coverage, Independent of the subject per WP:GNG. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, non-notable, trivial sources, purely promotional, another article created after reading the PR guide on how to use Wikipedia to increase your visibilty x1000. Captain Screebo Parley! 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, but you may not have looked through the page history much. For a historic version of the real crap see this old version. (I happen to be the contributor of most of what's there now after the article had been scrubbed.) Jesanj (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesanj, you made a few statements now that lead me to think you may even support a 'delete' vote now. You admitted on talk that she doesn't meet notability standards, and you are also saying here that the page was promotional. Your support for deletion would be helpful, since you have been the only independent editor supporting the page lately.Tao2911 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see what more experienced people thought first, but OK, that's fine, I'll collaborate on this discussion with a vote. Jesanj (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage in publications relevant to her supposed notability (fashion magazines) or evidence her work has been the on the recieving end of significant attention, like an exhibit (WP:CREATIVE). The most significant coverage appears to come from local newspapers, which might be fine for others, but if you're a fashion designer, I don't think that establishes notability for you. But if someone could access the book Business and show that there is some significant coverage in there, or provide evidence that she meets WP:CREATIVE I might change my vote. Jesanj (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * great. I'll just reiterate my assertion (stated in Talk) that her being mentioned in a 6 year old business class text book as an "up and coming business woman" is not in itself proof of notability; the source is not authoritative in her own field (fashion). And if six years later she is still so marginal, that actually perhaps says more than her being mentioned in the text book itself.Tao2911 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll just reiterate that notability is not temporary. =) Jesanj (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * not to beat a horse to death, but a mention in a business text book is hardly proof of ANY kind of notability... ;)Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O well... I'd disagree. It would work for an entrepreneur. Deluna sells stuff after all. For argument's sake, maybe she's a notable scarf selling entrepreneur. Maybe she's not a fashion designer after all. (I assume the mention would be significant and not trivial, which it could be in this case, but that is doubtful.) Jesanj (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Per my reasons given at 1st AFD, i.e. existence of reliable secondary sources, and other editors' opinions at WP:RSN, i.e. these are reliable and sufficient to establish notability. Though meager, sources have been added since 1st AFD. All the fluff has been removed at this point and a deletion would be - in my opinion - excessive. RacconishTk 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vote change in view of ongoing canvassing. RacconishTk 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: good point. Let's look at it - of 7 current sources, 5 are local (San Antonio) papers that don't establish her as notable in the fashion industry (which is the issue here): two are by same author with similar "local girl in big city" headlines, years apart; "Conexion", an Hispanic language neighborhood weekly; etc. Another is a 32 word commercial blurb on an MSN gallery of "Latin Girl Crushes of the Week" (generating a question whether the issue is really genuine fashion notability, or mainly her ethnicity. Also these kinds of spreads are commercial/promotional, and hardly noteworthy news source/analysis); and lastly, a line from a business text book, used by an editor who hasn't actually read the source, but just pulled the line from a data search (see above) - this doesn't do anything to establish notability, but simply allows a citation to show she's a "fashion designer". I'd argue this is needless puffery, but I am tired of fighting with this editor over such scraps.Tao2911 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, and the perpetual reinsertion of her wedding announcement that other editors here have clearly shown to not be a valid source, or certainly any sign of notability.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The local sources are reliable in the acceptance of WP:SOURCES. This is precisely the point I had raised at WP:RSN. Tao, I am not fighting with you now and I had not discussed the subject with you before. Please don't resent the expression of a point of view different from yours. I was one of the first to trim down the article, felt reluctant about keeping it on the basis Mrs Deluna's qualities as a fashion designer, but changed my opinion in view of the coverage by reliable - though local - press. This local notability seems to me sufficient to justify the keep. This said, I too won't shed a tear either way and would watch it too should it stay. I re-inserted the NYT reference only because it provided the citation needed, but agree it does not establish notability. RacconishTk 16:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with the adding of the NYT citation to support content (valid per WP:sps, not to establish notability. 72Dino (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The organizations FAQ states, in regards to an organization or person adding information about themselves for an article, "Likewise, if you have content which you think should be added, please discuss this on the talk page." I don't see how User:MDELUNANY is canvassing -- she's doing what the page instructs her to do and talking about articles that could be used for an article related to (potentially) herself, albeit doing it on the AfD page rather than the article's talk page, perhaps not knowing this is the improper place for such a discussion. As far as I know, she's not editing her own article, which would be a conflict of interest, and she's not !voting yes or no here in the AFD, just providing information... so I fail to see how this would be considered canvassing to the point that it has effected your !vote. --Mr. Brown (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deluna went to 5 different editor's talk pages and plastered them with the same soft sell she put here, along with comments regarding her "love and appreciation" for their support. If this isn't canvassing, I don't know what is. Personally, I feel she is evading a block by posting here at all. Her previous ID's (including Elizabeth Brown, the kindly New York grandmother), all the more transparent cons in light of her recent comments, have been blocked. She used an open IP, which was then also blocked and warned for avoiding the ban. A separate issue on one hand - and yet part of this notability issue in that it is ever more clear that it is Deluna and Deluna alone who created the page and (until the recent feint, pleading for deletion) the only one interested in keeping it.Tao2911 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are crossing the line. Clearly, there were some socks editing this article, both for and against Deluna, but I don't believe Elizabeth Brown (and her associated accounts) were actually the subject in question. If you think they are, you know what to do. Otherwise, keep your accusations to yourself and keep the AFD on topic. --Mr. Brown (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Looking back at the first AfD, I probably should have said "weak keep" there instead of "keep", but at that time I gave the article the benefit of the doubt. Now that the wedding is out, for instance, and nothing new has surfaced in the article (nothing positive anyway), I really don't see that much anymore. The Austin-American Statesman article was the strongest of the references, but that and a few mentions elsewhere really aren't enough. I won't shed a tear either way, but if this stays, editors (including this one) will keep an eye on it to make sure that it doesn't get repuffed. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The subject does not yet appear to meet the requirements of guidelines WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE because there is not significant coverage of the subject is secondary sources.  I disregarded the behavior of some editors and focused solely on the references, many of which were accessible via university libraries online.  I tried to give the subject fair consideration by searching for additional sources.  However, there was not sufficient pertinent coverage in my opinion.  Frankly, if a person is truly notable it would not be that difficult to locate references.  The person may become more notable in the future, but right now I don’t think the article is ready for prime time. 72Dino (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The above post follows up on a canvassing warning. RacconishTk 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- Once notified by you, I quickly removed what is referred to on Wikipedia as "Canvassing". I have no hard feelings either way.  After reading "We've won and we should be good winners." Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)- I will remove myself from editing as the point should be improvement not to "win or lose".  All I ask is that the provided scans receive a fair review.MDELUNANY (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The above post follows up on a COI-Username warning. RacconishTk 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PLEASE DELETE I would very much like for my inclusion in Wikipedia to be removed. Many thanks for those who contributed and made selfless efforts to rebuild my page.  Perhaps you will revisit an inclusion when verifiable notations can be located publicly.  No hard feelings on my end.  Life is kind even on a bad day! Love, MPD MDELUNANY (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW delete. The article has been edited by people closely affiliated with the subject, and yet very little in terms of coverage has surfaced. This suggests there isn't anything else, and given that this article has been the locus of so much disruption, there's no reason to have it around anymore. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * amen to that.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Lack of real notability as a fashion designer means fails WP:GNG. Mt  king  (edits)  11:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that MDELUNANY is a sock of ElizabethCB123 and have re-opened the SPI here.  Mt  king  (edits)  11:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MDELUNANY has been blocked indefinitely as the latest sock of ElizabethCB123. And so it goes...Tao2911 (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (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.