Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Reece


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Somaya Reece

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources which back up the assertions of notability. Lots of picture galleries and blogs but not much else. It seems odd that she would be named the #3 Latina in music when she's currently working on her first album. I question whether having huge numbers of friends on MySpace can be used to establish notability. Otto4711 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - She appears to be on IMB and other known sites. Artaxiad 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "IMB" you mean IMDB, that is not considered a reliable source because users can edit it. Otto4711 21:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Users cannot edit IMDB. It's fine as a reliable source. -- JHunterJ 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Edit" is the wrong word, but it is still modified based on user input so as I understand it is not considered reliable. Regardless, her IMDB entry shows her in such roles as "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music video girl" which are not really the sorts of roles that would qualify her for an entry under WP:BIO. And again, there do not appear to be independent sources which establish notability. Otto4711 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having editors who can act upon user input does not devalue a site's reliability. IMDB does not stumble over any of the objections raised in WP:RS.  -- JHunterJ 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well, leaving that aside and while I still may disagree with it, the balance of the issues remain as far as the quality of the IMDB credits in establishing notability per WP:BIO and the lack of other reliable sourcing establishing notability. Otto4711 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Artaxiad. Epbr123 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, only because of the mainstream appearances (Girlfriends & Entourage); as an aside, simply because someone appears on MySpace is not a measure of notability. --Mhking 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Artaxiad. An aside for Mhking's aside: Existence on MySpace or other social networking is not notable, but reaching  high levels of whatever measures the sites use might be. -- JHunterJ 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Latino Entertainment TV" is a made up source.  If you google it, the only items that come up are the three that Ms. Reece has put on the internet talking about herself.  Nothing on her page can be substantiated.  How can she name herself the site's #1 latina?  Has myspace announced that?  She claims on her myspace page that her song has 2.8 million plays.  If you go to her music page, you can see that is far from the truth.  She has had less than 50,000 plays.  The 2.8 million number somes from a file that she has embedded in all of her bulletins on myspace.  Anytime anyone opens up the posting (including herself), the number increases. --- Jessie620 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it's made up. Daily Variety included "Latl-Latino Entertainment Television" in their "opt-in" listing of production companies on 11 September 2006. The website given there, http://www.latinoentertainmenttelevision.com, appears to be offline now, though.    It appears the claim for "#1 Latina" is made based on the number of MySpace friends; I made a few searches for Latinas with more than 100000 friends, and it appears to be correct, with Christina Aguilera coming in second. -- JHunterJ 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true (isn't it a bit odd the website is offline now), Somaya has put "articles" up on her website claiming to be from other journalists. None of these publications could be found and none of the writers are notable enough to be taken seriously.  It could have been her neighbor writing it.  The bottom line is Somaya notoriously self-promotes.  It's what she does.  Unfortunately, she uses made up sources to back up her false claims.  In all honesty, outside of myspace, the general population does not know who she is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jessie620 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep - A prolific model and photographer. Mainstream appearances.  --Oakshade 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. And where are the RELIABLE SOURCES that support this assertion? Is anyone who wants this article kept planning to, at any point, address the fact that she utterly fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE? Otto4711 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB has already been pointed out to you. It lists, reliably, some of her modeling work: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1127222/publicity -- JHunterJ 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I remain unpersuaded. I uploaded every scrap of information from here and not a word of it was changed by anyone at IMDB. It all happens to be true, but that's beside the point. I've uploaded trivia, goofs, credits information, "also known as" and other sorts of information to IMDB and none of it has ever been changed, not even typos. Absent proof that IMDB engages in the sort of editorial oversight of material uploaded as "publicity" required by WP:RS I can't accept it as a reliable source. Especially in light of the campaign of self-promotion that the subject of the article engages in. And even if one were to accept unquestioningly that IMDB is reliable, it does not support, and indeed no sources yet offered support, either the claims made in the article or the notion that this person passes WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Otto4711 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An article's subject's webpage (even MySpace) appears to be acceptable in many cases according to WP:SELFPUB. I do not understand why a subject's self-promotion should be called into question.-- JHunterJ 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:SELFPUB: "The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all." The subject has a reputation for inflating her alleged notability by doing things like inserting links in posts to boost her stats and that can certainly be considered. Under WP:SELFPUB the default on self-published sources like MySpace is that they are not acceptable as sources especially in the absence of other independent sourcing. It must be said yet again that there are no such independent sources that establish that the subject passes either WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Otto4711 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for asserting this reputation exists? In any event, I still feel that the combination of IMDB-documented modeling & acting work and MySpace statistics (just the friends/hits/counts that the site records objectively) could meet WP:NOTE. -- JHunterJ 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you shouldn't have any problem finding the substantial independent sources that WP:NOTE demands. Where are they? And why is it that credits for the deleted Jason McMahon noted below with credits like "Baseball player" and "Janitor" wasn't notable but somehow credits like "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music video girl" are so stellar that they establish notability. And please spare me talk of her modeling work on IMDB, because anyone, including her, can upload it and IMDB doesn't vet it. This person does not pass BIO, does not pass NOTE and you have yet to offer one word that supports the notion that she does. Otto4711 19:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB. Just because you don't want to count it doesn't mean I have to ignore it. -- JHunterJ 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you ignore it. I'm suggesting that you try to grasp the fact that any Tom, Dick and Somaya can upload anything they want to it and IMDB does not exercise any degree of editorial oversight. I could go right now and upload a notice to Samoya's IMDB page saying that she was on the cover of the August 2003 issue of "Cat Fancier" stroking her pussy cat and in a week or so it'll appear on her publicity page. I do not get whether you actually do not understand this or if you are willfully ignoring it in the name of WP:ILIKEIT. Nor do I get why you cling to the notion that credits like "Harlot (uncredited)" do anything to establish notability. Do you know what "uncredited" usually means? Extra. In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear why her credits are superior in that regard to those of the actors mentioned elsewhere on the page but for some reason you keep refusing to answer that, I can't imagine why. Otto4711 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per JHunterJ below, IMDB does have heavy oversite to its content that I've personally experienced. This is why IMDB is very reliable. --Oakshade 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotten emails from the IMDB editors asking questions of some of my submissions and refusing others -- oversight. In the meantime, try to keep your tone more civil. -- JHunterJ 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever notice how often, in AFDs, when someone's avoiding answering a question they fling out an accusation of incivility? I've never gotten a single email from IMDB asking me a question about anything I've ever uploaded. No oversight. I trust my experience more than I trust yours, and you still haven't answered my question regarding why playing "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Music viceo girl" confer notability when playing "Baseball player" and "Janitor" do not. Show me anything on Wikipedia that indicates that being a glorified extra confers notability that gets past WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Anything at all. Otto4711 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point you keep bringing up, Otto. I am curious to know the answer as well.  Why is Somaya lauded for being a "notable" extra when other wiki pages of people with similar credits are deleted? Jessie620 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I get the impression that the subject is somewhat notable, but if she is really as notable as the article makes out, then it shouldn't be difficult to source. So why haven't any of the editors voting "Keep" done this?  Because at the moment the article still fails WP:ATT and I suspect there's quite a bit of exaggeration here.  Eliminator JR   Talk  09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Offering for consideration to answer the notion that her minor IMDB credits qualify her for an article Articles for deletion/Jason McMahon and Articles for deletion/Scott Long (Reality TV contestant) as just two of the many examples of people with similar levels of credits whose articles were deleted. Otto4711 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That appears as a reverse WP:POKEMON argument; "If we deleted x, we should delete y because I think it's equal value." --Oakshade 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There's pretty much no verifed content in the article. Agree with EliminatorJR. As per WP:ATT, If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Cloudz679 02:30, 1 April 2007 (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.