Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jean Dureza


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Mary Jean Dureza

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a wholly promotional biography created a few weeks ago. The refs provided are not independent Reliable sources, so WP:GNG appears to be failed, as do WP:BIO and WP:PROF.

The whole tone and content of the article is so blatantly promotional that it looks like a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

Regardless of whether other sources can be found to satisfy WP:BIO/WP:NPROF and regardless of who User:Speak0u7 actually is, there is nothing here worth keeping, so WP:TNT is in order. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree per nom that the article reads like an autobiography, probably fails WP:NPOV and WP:BIO.  GoldMiner24 Talk 22:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO, and Wikipedia is not about you. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 04:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. It's as simple as that, there's no way the article's subject comes even close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This includes WP:ANYBIO as well as the notability guidelines covered by the padded out description of "educator, content creator, author, speaker, and researcher" which would be WP:NACADEMIC for educator and researcher and WP:AUTHOR for author and content creator, and speaker. I did check each of these criteria and the article's subject meets none of them. This article resembles the promotional blurb you'd see on the back of a book about it's author more than it does a Wikipedia article, which is what happens when there's no independent sources to rely on. - Aoidh (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Good afternoon, the author is about to publish their company for the sole purpose of encouraging young people to achieve their dreams. As part of introducing the author's legitimacy, some of the works were cited in order to validate the claims.
 * However, if you decided that the author's information and the way it was illustrated fails to meet the standard, then you may delete it from the page. `Thus, if you can suggest a better way to keep the page in the wiki in order to encourage the author to add more suitable information needed for future readers, that would be a great help.
 * please take note that this is 1st creation of the author, and have edited more than 10 pieces of content in order to publish its first write-ups. Speak0u7 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Speak0u7 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The issue isn't the content, it's the notability of the article's subject. The article cannot be rewritten in a way that makes it notable, notability is demonstrated via coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Not every person needs or should have a Wikipedia article about them, especially if the article is being created just to give an air of legitimacy to the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . As the above editor states, the problem is that the subject of the article, while undoubtedly a worthy citizen, does not currently meet any of the guidelines for inclusion in an international, general-interest encyclopedia. The relevant guidelines are WP:PROF for academics and WP:AUTHOR for authors. Once the subject's second book has been published, if multiple book reviews are published in reliable mainstream sources, then there might be grounds for revisiting the question. Alternatively when the company has been up and running for several years, if it attracts significant press attention, there might then be grounds for considering an article on the company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to promote stuff, subjects of the articles need be shown to be notable, explained. We need reliable sources to prove the article belongs here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG Andre🚐 17:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't for selling your stuff. No reliable sources found and I don't see any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOSOON at best -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as possible WP:NOTYOU and probably WP:NBIO (or WP:BASIC perhaps). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as the author clearly has some form of COI, likely autobiographical. Speak0u7 has reverted most of my page triage work and has made repeated attempts to re-add the same external links, as well as removing maintenance tags from the article. All signs that they are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Also, agree with notability concerns stated above. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2022 (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.