Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanda Mora

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. ✗plicit 23:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Mora[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not notable, only real claim is that she was married (now divorced) from an MLB player and there were domestic violence issues. She's certainly not notable as an aesthetician or otherwise and her status as a victim also does not make her notable. CUPIDICAE💕 19:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more sourcing related to her and the allegations made in the divorce, e.g. Sun-Sentinel 2004, in addition to the 1997 UPI report. I also found brief coverage of her related to abuse allegations against Cordero (Hartford Courant, 1997). The 2015 Philly Inquirer article about her and her salon provides some biographical information, and there is some coverage of her charitable work following Hurricane Maria with biographical information (ABC6, 2018), and coverage of her charitable work in 2021 (ABC7). There is no mention of her experience as a survivor of domestic violence in the most recent sources, so I favor deletion per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, e.g. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. If we follow this policy, there appears to be insufficient sourcing to support the article per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Beccaynr's reasoning. All of what I find about her is routine rather than in depth. Rockphed (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2022 (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.