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 redirect to Venus Palermo. MBisanz talk 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Palermo[edit]

Margaret Palermo (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)

Note: This is not harassment, it is merely a statement of truth, in order to keep Wikipedia up with required notability within the rules. Note: Wikipedia article "Margaret Palermo" was created by herself, Margaret Palermo" (check article history for alias, matched with her D.O.B.) Please also note that most of the text is written about another character (daughter of Margaret, Venus Palermo) than the article's subject, as well as the resources on the bottom are not relevant to the article's character at all They are, in fact, about her daughter, who also helped create this article. All resources on the bottom is irrelevant to the character, and most of it is hosted on unofficial domains (i.e. Facebook photos). A lot of it is deemed non-qualified for sources, in forms of being random photos and links to YouTube videos that has no show for the subject in the article. A source needs to be a direct source, not hosted on a secondary domain.

Article does not contain any "independent of the subject". There are no press releases or advertisement about Margaret herself. Anything to do with her daughter is not appropriate for this article, as her daughter Venus Palermo has her own Wikipedia page. This article, Margaret Palermo, is not an independent article. ALL sources on the bottom point to Venus, and not Margaret. It is merely a secondary-article about Venus Palermo. Unlike Venus Palermo's article, this article does not hold ground for being credible, notable or relevant. Wikipedia article is nothing but a unambiguous advertising or promotional page for her daughter Venus Palermo (please see the bottom sources of the main article.) Dekikaki (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user and hope I'm doing the talk correctly on the right place. I would like to report repeated abuse by Dekikai user. The person plans to put the article up for deletion as long the article stays on Wikipedia, merely from the reason of being a hater. Please check a certain webpage "prettyuglylittleliar" which is a BLACKLISTED hater page according Wikipedia. The same user is bragging on 85 pages about Margaret Palermo, spreading hate, libel and other forms of personal attacks.

The user brags about how she tries to delete the Wikipedia article about Margaret Palermo, also giving her and her minor daughter nasty names. The person writes this or agrees with other about writing this

"She calls people's deletion request "harassment", wtf? Pointing out how irrelevant and non-noticeable her mother is because the article is all about Venus anyway, is not harassment.
Fuck off, Venus. You're the one ruining the purpose of Wikipedia.
Edit: Her article was put on the "articles for deletion page", meaning it's up to other editors/users (that are not Venus/Margo) to decide whether it stays or goes. I read about page requirements and it doesn't meet criteria at all of staying.
And if it gets ignored/chosen to stay, it's pretty easy to put it back for a new review."
Also the user and her friends come back to edit libel into the article. That is against Wikipedia rules and such user should be stopped from editing articles.
After responding here, also noticed that my IP address was reported by the same haters. As I am a new Wikipedia user and was only trying to edit the mentioned article, it is obvious that reporting my IP address is a personal attack against Margaret palermo, as I only removed libel against her.Kissa3b (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kissa3b, please keep your points based around Wikipedia policy especially notability and biographies of living persons. Comments about the motives of other editors are not helpful and will not be considered when deciding on the outcome of the discussion. What is written off-wiki is irrelevant, whther there is an article about Margaret wil be decided solely in line with Wikipedia policy. The content of the article needs to meet Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view and any editor who tries to push the content either pro or for the subject can be sanctioned by editing restrictions and/or being blocked from editing. Nthep (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell who's bashing who above, so I would instruct anything above "Comment" to be ignored. The relevant policy is WP:NOTINHERITED, and as the creator of Venus Palermo, I would suggest that Venus does not meet the notability requirements for her YouTube career. She meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2 in her capacity as a singer. Margaret is not even close to meeting either criterion. Therefore, delete. --Launchballer 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Venus Palermo - unless a stronger case can be made to support independent notability (WP:GNG, WP:BLP), especially once the spam and NPOV fails in the article are stripped away. Seems to be attracting strongly WP:OWN-based edit warring, and if the above comments hold valid, it seems to run afoul of WP:SPIP. Dl2000 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the page be merged with the Venus Palermo page. The only fix that could possibly make this page more relevant is if there is more information based specifically on Margaret Palermo such as her early life and education. As the current information is all about Venus Palermo, whom already has a separate page, and it is not giving any further information as a page than the Venus Palermo page. The references are not particularly solid with most of them pertaining to be hearsay as opposed to solid research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykat28 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete - can't find anything worth merging here, and almost zero coverage online in WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with you in regards to Margaret, Venus meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Launchballer 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (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.
More