Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalina Maya (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, per late trend. BD2412 T 14:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Maya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

quite apart from the impossibly bad translation, I don't think this shows notability The refs are routine promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as I said in the last AfD, 90% of Colombian journalism is promotional fluff and sycophancy. You're going to struggle to find objective sources, especially about models and TV presenters. But the sources are reliable ones. Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think so. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV, and run of the mill model and YouTuber. She's not a professional journalist - it seems like she's more of a blogger/vlogger. Her sole claim to fame appears to be playing herself in the original series of Ugly Betty. That's not even close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: just to clarify, W Radio is a reputable and recognized nationally-broadcast radio station, and she presents on it in a professional capacity as part of the drivetime team each weekday evening. If that's not considered enough to make her notable, I won't argue with it, but in Colombia it's almost impossible to become a female radio or TV presenter without being a model and/or former beauty queen, so I wouldn't hold that against her as her background... it's whether she's done enough after that to make her notable. Richard3120 (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 I'm old enough to remember that female teachers who got pregnant were fired, ugly Betty types were not taken seriously in public life, and to become a female New York City Commissioner you had to be Miss America first. Becoming a model was a tried and true method of advancement in my mother's day (the 1950's and 1960s - she had us triplets after she lost her hourglass figure). We gays love our beauty queens. The problem with modelling as a career is that on Wikipedia, we've found it difficult to quantify what makes a model or a radio DJ notable. I don't think we have standards, and I'm not going to link to some deprecated guidelines, as they would not be helpful. So, like many Wikipedians, I fall back on WP:SIGCOV and WP:42, which are far from perfect. Now, as to your specific example, perhaps being a drive time presenter in a major media market is sufficient. Let me think about it. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I agree with you, and have no particular interest in either keeping or deleting this article, merely to point out that she has progressed somewhat from being simply a model and YouTuber. I accept though that it is definitely difficult to find SIGCOV for Colombian presenters, in a country where much of the journalistic reporting is in the style of Hello! magazine, with an emphasis on the glamorous lives led by actors, footballers and models. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Pardon the pun, but I've alerted the media: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio#Drive_time. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of significance, let alone notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Note: this is the nominator[reply]

• Keep There is WP:SIGCOV in Vanguardia, El Espectador, El Tiempo, El Colombiano, among others, from 2003-2019. Even though some of those contain interviews, they also include the reporters' writing about her. As a model from the early 1990s to 2005, there is probably also a lot of coverage which is not online. I have focused on adding citations and sources to support the information in the article, but I have also added a bit more info that the sources reveal, including that her photos appeared on student notebooks in the late 1990s-early 2000s (when she was also appearing in many advertising campaigns), so she would have been very well known to a generation of school and university students. A Google search shows more coverage of her, which could be added to the article. She clearly meets WP:GNG and probably also WP:NMODEL, which would surely cover someone who is recognisable and written about, no matter what she is recognisable for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She clearly meets WP:GNG and the SNG of WP:NMODEL, She also appearing in many advertising campaigns. Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 13:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY after work by RebeccaGreen. This is possibly a precedent that drive-time DJs could be considered notable, if shown by significant coverage (past or present). Bearian (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.