Maria Amor Torres: Rejected G4 (previous discussion closed after a copyvio speedy deletion, not consensus to delete) and PROD was removed.  After removing unsourced promotional material and other BLP violations, the article's content in its entirety is "<person> is a woman born in the Philippines."  A longer version in the history expands on her claims to fame which don't appear to be notable.  This is also related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Care for Humanity , the organization she founded, which was found to be non-notable although that discussion was 7 years ago.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Philippines .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment - okay, I was only aware of the earliest of those three deletion discussions.  Discussion #3 from 2018 is informative as to why this person was not notable then and remains non-notable now.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.thestar.com.my/Metro/Focus/2015/02/06/For-humanitys-sake-Former-beauty-queen-visits-Malaysia-in-search-of-humanitarians-to-feature-in-her/ was considered valid coverage in the previous AFD discussions.  But maybe consider WP:SALTing if deleted again.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Google News and News Archives did not provide useful results.  Also consider salting.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found 3 citations and added to the current article. She is also an author with several books coming up in Google Books. I have ran out of time for now and will try to improve this article further at a future time should it remain live. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best list any potential sources here, so as not to violate BLP and put yourself at risk of sanctions. The three you restored are not reliable. I've included them below. -- Hipal ( talk ) 00:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [ reply ] I am not sure how it is a violation if I improved the article and why you removed the citations that I added.  The citations I added seemed good in my opinion.If they are from foreign publications that does not necessarily mean they are not reliable.  She may be a popular person in her country and getting coverage in those type of publications.You may need to explain why you think the 3 publications I added are not reliable.This is just your opinion.  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 15:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is also important to note that 2 of the publications you removed have Wikipedia page, hence that makes it less likely that they are not reliable.  The Himalayan Times has been around since 2001.  Khmer Times has been around since 2014.  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how we determine what references can be used.  Do you understand what press releases and public relations campaigns are?  -- Hipal ( talk ) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Another promo piece by another shill. "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 ) 13:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously, I haven't heard of her. Even the references included in the earlier versions are spurious, and so was the alleged "televised" fashion show. Delete . --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt per Lenticel, Titopao and Duffbeerforme.  - Ian Lopez @ 15:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment BDNews24 seems to be a reliable news portal but The Himalayan Times and the Khmer Times are questionable.  The former has rather interesting self-proclaimed facts in their wiki article while the latter isn't even archived by the Wayback machine.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The BDNews24 piece is a warmed-over press release from The PFDA-Vocational Training Center, which it attributes.  -- Hipal ( talk ) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here you go , that's one more point in favor of deletion. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and we should seriously consider salting Mason ( talk ) 20:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’m really amazed why an editor will be blanking all the references attach to this article.  These references aren’t press release as he said.  One thing about the notability of Royal member, Queen,Princesses etc is not about media coverage.  Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable.  The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.  This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis.  Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria).  Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO.  Furthermore, there’s important criterion that you should also look: The subject serves in an official capacity within the government, such as an Ambassador or Administrator.  The subject is a member of one or more national orders, such as the Order of the Chrysanthemum or the Order of the Garter.  The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession to the throne.  Which this article is either of this categories.  Please admin should intervene by warning the editor from removing her clear information and the references.  102.91.55.98 ( talk ) 09:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m even surprising why the article was notable before then become non notable now.  Once an article is notable it’s notable forever.  The first AFD was copybio it got deleted because that, the second AFD has passed without deletion, the third AFD got deletion with reason not strong.  We should know that media coverage is one of the key factor that determine notability but not really apply to any article such Royal Family.  102.91.55.94 ( talk ) 08:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 11:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Filipino princess champions humanitarian efforts in Cambodia - Khmer Times" .  2019-10-15 .  Retrieved 2023-08-13 .  ^ Sureis (2018-11-23).  "Pokhara is paradise, says Filipino princess" .  The Himalayan Times .  Retrieved 2023-08-13 .  ^ "Philippines' Princess Maria Torres spends time with Bangladesh's special children" .  bdnews24.com .  Retrieved 2023-08-13 .  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.

Discussion outcome: delete