Talk:Killing of Valeria Márquez: Difference between revisions

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Valeria Márquez.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Respect for a deceased

I would like to point out that inserting phrases such as "Valeria Márquez is alive" are offenses to her own memory. Avoiding conspiracy theories should be what this encyclopedia should do. Stop inserting phrases without support, such as "she wanted to receive gifts", "she is alive" etc. Because we are talking about the memory of a deceased who can't defend herself.

The sources brought are authoritative. No speculation or anything like that, and the page is perfectly in line with other pages about influencers, internet personalities etc. Let's check to believe. What is posted is supported by sources, and the only thing the media reports but it's not certain is the possible involvement of her ex-boyfriend or other people.

Quotes about her personal life, childhood etc are supported by sources that are based on the words of family members or the deceased herself. There is nothing invented and I have not brought anything that is not certain. Only facts. So there is no reason to delete content, without valid reasons.

- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just because things are "supported by sources" doesn't mean it is fit for an encylopedia article. We are not a collection of all facts nor a memorial page. I feel your edits here are out of policy and this version] is much more appropriate for this enecylopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually this page is like all the influencers pages here. Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is that this one was killed, and I can assure you that I have only reported confirmed facts. Information about her personal life? Mention because for all other influencers or well-known people there is such a section. Who was present and what did the Jalisco prosecutor's office report? Data. More encyclopedia than that. I am following developments very carefully and like everyone here on Wikipedia I work impartially without confirming theories, only reporting what authoritative newspapers report. And this is especially because we are talking about a deceased, and as stated by the state of Jalisco, every little detail in her case makes a difference. Right, "you hear", and I see instead based on the pages of other famous people or influencers that I have edited exclusively as Wikipedia claims to be done. Quotes about her private life = if verified, present on all influencer pages. Reports of his death = if verified by the same state of Jalisco, it is right that they are reported. Obviously everyone sees what they want in the way they think best, but I want to emphasize that until now no one had given my way of editing as wrong and wrong, I don't see the problem in this. The important thing is verifiability and relevance. This is an ongoing investigation, and the same investigation has provided the evidence I have brought. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Please see WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Also, just because other pages might exist doesn't mean this one's content is appropriate. "Confirmed facts" isn't a sufficient measure for what we include in our encyclopedia. When you say "I am following developments very carefully" I fear you think we are a page for reporting any possible detail, and that is not what this encycloepdia is for. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you don't get the point. I understand what you mean, that we are not a memorial and that we do not have to carry everything we find. And it is correct, but it is not the case with the page in question, because as you can see, only what has been confirmed by the investigations has been reported. "When you say "I am following developments very carefully" I fear you think we are a page for reporting any possible detail, and that is not what this encycloepdia is for.", exactly, you fear, that doesn't make it so until proven otherwise. "Also, just because other pages might exist doesn't mean this one's content is appropriate." = Right, but everything on this page is appropriate because I repeat the only things mentioned are things reported by the authorities and important for this case. I am only doing my duty in reporting facts relevant to what they are without altering anything. This is understanding what Wikipedia is. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NOTNEWS? Are you aware of WP:RECENT? You seem to be acknowleding that you plan to simply post any news tidbit, and once again, that's not what an encyclopedia article is for. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Understanding what Wikipedia is what the people who write Valeria is alive have not understood, not me. We await further developments from the investigation, and if information is confirmed that contradicts other things present here, I will delete them myself immediately. In any case, I don't allow myself to come to you and tell you how you have to do your job here, I would like it to be done anyway. You can rest assured that I know all the guidelines of this community. If I didn't know them, I wouldn't allow myself to stay here and do what I do. Good bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about you or other editors or anything like that. It is ensuring our articles align with policy as best we can. I still argue that this version accomplishes that (and my edit summaries leading to that version explain the policy reasons). I think it is time for a WP:3O. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The trimmed-down version of the article is more encyclopedic in tone and focus. For the proposed additions to be appropriate, they would need strong support from multiple reliable sources. Just because a detail is covered somewhere does not automatically justify its inclusion in a biography. Nemov (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Nemov:, for providing this third opinion. I will probably start trimming-down some sections over the course of the day, unless others start before me. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

In focus of what? We are talking about investigations into a murdered woman, I don't see excessively detailed content or not supported by sources.

What would the excessive information be? His personal aspirations, a bouquet of flowers considered evidence and even confiscated by the authorities to examine it? The memory that he had aspirations in life? Wishes? Things present in all the other biographies? Here there is no gossip, but only developments of investigations. As far as I'm concerned, deleting information (already very minimal What would the excessive information be? His personal aspirations, a bouquet of flowers considered evidence and even confiscated by the authorities to examine it? The memory that he had aspirations in life? Wishes? Things present in all the other biographies? Here there is no gossip, but only developments of investigations. As far as I'm concerned, deleting information (already very minimal) about the (fundamental) investigations, the reactions (also present in many other articles of killings here on the wiki) and traits of her private life (there are special sections here on Wikipedia in all articles) seems to me a very senseless thing.

I really don't see what there is to delete on a page that is already so minimalist and on which investigations are underway. We should at least have the decency to end the investigations that are now underway.

I also say that too much is avoidable, but on this page, there is nothing too much. Is the "Earlier during the live, Márquez expressed concern about her safety." the problem? Is it the fact that she revealed that she was afraid for her life? What was reported by all the newspapers that dealt with her death in depth? Do we bother deleting this information? I think it is crucial as information. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to fear that you're unwilling to recognize that this is an encyclopedia project built on consensus and policies. Again, this isn't a place to retell every single update of a recent death. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now made some reasonable edits (with edit summaries) to try to remove much of the extraneous and speculative content. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Evidently you don't understand. What would be wrong with reporting a test and the salon of the influencer herself where she died? If it is not clear to you, it is considered PROOF that bouquet of flowers, it was TAKEN AWAY as proof. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valeria_M%C3%A1rquez_(influencer)&diff=prev&oldid=1292737156 Honestly, this removal is absolutely senseless, and I repeat, the photo of her salon is reported as the place where the events took place. In many cases of killing, the photo of the place is present on the pages here on Wikipedia. What is speculation in mentioning that your salon is under seizure? Where is the speculation in claiming that employee was named Erika? Do you at least know what is meant by speculation? Fact not confirmed. And the above facts are CONFIRMED. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: It is becoming clear that you're refusing, or not able, to work collaboratively on this article. Multiple editors (via 3rd Opinion and in the article's edit history) have indicated that the level of details you insist on included aren't appropriate. And every time I provide a comment here, or make reasoned edits with policy-based edit summaries, you simply revert without actually engaging with the guidance being provided to you. Again, I fear you are WP:NOTHERE. My patience is running low at this point as it seems you wish to WP:OWN this article and refuse to accept if consensus doesn't go your way. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If your patience is disappearing (like mine, there are two of us) evidently you don't like others thinking differently from you. And I repeat, changing the titles of paragraphs to delete content at will is not a correct behavior. Even my patience is at the limit. It is not a question of owning the article but of accepting the contributions of others, and since I have compromised and accepted your changes although I do not agree, You should do the same because it is not your article but everyone's, and the fact that you don't like the inclusion of certain information is not an excuse. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

To conclude: the information that you evidently don't like is talking about the roses outside her salon and the fact that she has been embalmed. Now, on balance, why were they included? Because evidently they are relevant, not too detailed, not too much "shopping list" and not gossip, but real information. Coming to talk about too much information in articles like this is senseless to say the least, it doesn't really make sense. Changing titles and removing content without consulting is equally unfair. I have accepted the work of other people, but I would like and demand that mine would also be accepted, without pointing the finger based on false methods of encyclopedicity that are evidently present here and without going to accuse people who contribute to this project and only claim that their work is respected. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why the details I have mentioned are relevant:

• Wikipedia aims at an accurate reconstruction of the facts that is possible if the information is reported in full.
• If authoritative sources report it, it makes sense that it should be included on Wikipedia
• If the fact is verifiable through sources, relevant to the understanding of the facts, then it meets all the possible requirements to be on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia is Reference source for current events, and of public interest.
• If the information is contextualized, there is no reason for it to be excluded.
• Help avoid incomplete or fanciful interpretations.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SIGCOV and other policies and guidlines provided to you repeatedly -- and the third opinion and edit summaries of multiple other editors -- you'd realize that almost none of these bullet points are appropraite arguments for the level of details you seek to include in this encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but if you read Wikipedia guidelines you can also see that deleting without true explanation, changing titles to delete things, it's also not allowed. And already knowing all the guidelines, I assure you that if I insert information it is because I know that they can stay here. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Image

I restored the photo of the salon cause "a dark, empty salon photo doesn't provide any encyclopedic information" isn't a justification for the removal. It is the place of death, evidently a photo taken by a person who had the opportunity to see the salon. Place of death and photos are usually given in the articles relating to killings. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, yes this is a valid justifcation for removing a poor-quality, dark photo. Please see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. The image in question is dark, does not provide any specific indication of where the crime happened, or provide any unique information about the salon. What is your policy-based arguement other than the fact other articles have images? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it was taken by someone who supposedly photographed the salon isn't enough for you? Now let's take the photo quality as an excuse?

Another thing, before deleting material you check if others agree. Changing the title of paragraphs and deleting information is not a correct way to act, much less giving an excuse of unencyclopedicity when it is clearly not true. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Who took the photo is irrelevant. And I've pointed out the low quality as an issue previously. Did you read the MOS links I provided? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Evidently you do not consider it encyclopedic to lay flowers outside his beauty salon. But I ask you, is there a rule that prohibits inserting this type of information in a special section in an article that talks about his death? No, there is no such rule. Let's not hide behind a request for encyclopedicity, it's not correct. Deleting information because we don't like it is not correct, right? MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which has been pointed out to you multiple times. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You can rest assured that I know all the community guidelines. The fact that you keep listing these rules to a person you don't know shows the fact that you don't accept the work of others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:ZimZalaBim , I'm amazed you deleted the only photo of the murder scene on the Internet. I was interested in this event, and reviewed at least 50 reputable sources. And I haven't seen this photo anywhere.

I looked at your contribution - you are a typical representative of the "removers". You haven't created a single page in the last 500 edits. It's difficult for you. You are only parasitizing the contributions of others. And there are a lot of "removers" in the Wiki.  

(I don't create pages either, I don't have any ideas for a Wiki). But I appreciate the information , found by others. And I don't call myself an administrator.

The rule says that you should choose the best of 2 photos. Is this photo dark for you? It is made with the external lighting turned on. It is known that human vision is much more sensitive to light than the matrix of a digital camera. There was quite enough light for the man in that salon at the murder scene. Sorry the photographer what exactly the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Studio with a 70m flash didn't buy for you. Photo was like what was. Or the investigator should have told the journalists - come tomorrow, turn on the lights, take pictures of everything here, put it on the Internet. And then I'll download everything from Wikipedia to my criminal file. Photos from the event are of great encyclopedic value !.

But you don't understand that. The author brought a rare and valuable photo. Everything related to serious crimes is always closed by the investigation for obvious reasons. But it's not clear to you. I can explain the exact value of this photo to you. But not here.

Is the photo of the salon not valuable? And what is the value of the exterior of the house where Robert F. Kennedy was born? Or a photo of his gravestone? Value only for builders or gravediggers ? Or are you looking for a photo where the criminal was supposed to draw a cross from where he shot Valeria Marquez?

Or the first photo in History? Also delete it based on the rule -- it doesn't have 200 MP?

I came to the Wiki for this article, and only here I found a photo of the murder scene. And not on guardian.com

And you deleted the photo? Then go to the Investigative Committee in Mexico and get a better photo. This is called applying the rule MOS:IMAGEQUALITY.  

You haven't created any articles. Your positive contribution is the correction of letters from small to big. After you delete the photo, I'm pretty sure that you have no place among the Wiki administrators.

Also, my indignation is based on the fact that I am afraid to imagine how much more valuable information you have removed from the Wiki in the past. Seregadu (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly part of my thinking. I don't know exactly what some users expect when it comes to photos taken by people on a place of something. Unfortunately, phones are used and the quality may not be optimal, but really the removals of the image on several occasions justified as "a black and dark salon..." or as it has been written, it was really inappropriate. And I think that actually those who created the image and uploaded it, maybe were also disappointed to learn that the quality of their photo was not to the liking of other people and in addition that they took it and therefore had the opportunity to visit the place of the shooting, guaranteeing us an image of the place of the event. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

These long screeds, once again, are missing the key point. Due to its poor quality, the image fails to "have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding" MOS:IMAGEREL. There's not even a way to determine if this actually is the crime scene, let alone the actual salon. It is of little encyclopedic value. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear: quality DOES NOT DETERMINE encyclopedicity and to say that it is not the photo of the place is an insult to those who took it. In the case of photos taken by people and posted, there is a free license and you trust that what the photo shows is actually what it is unless you have crushed evidence to the contrary. Honestly, your arguments are out of place as far as the image is concerned. Just search for a photo of the salon online and compare it to this one. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot tell if you're being obstinate on purpose or simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY absolutely bears on "encyclopedicity". And I can't do anything if my stating the image is dark hurts the photographer's feelings. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You may not care about these things, but at least you should care about the fact that it is the only image of the salon uploaded to commons and that you are bothered by the quality, and the fact that you believe it is not a real image of the salon, are honestly not relevant for the deletion of the image nor motivations to delete it. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You'll note it currently present in this very article (despite my view regarding its appropriateness). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is present. The fact that it is dark and inappropriate for you does not matter to anyone because there is no rule about it. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The Russians have a joke:

"Report to Stalin: we have a prisoner in the GULAG with a mustache like yours. -- - Shoot. -- Maybe, just to shave off his mustache ? -Or so."

It's the same with photography. User:ZimZalaBim chose the most destructive way - delete. And made a choice for all Wiki users. He knows better what we're interested in. This decision is above any Wiki admin. Now can change the brightness of a photo on a website page without even leaving the browser, and even don't need to download anything. Everyone can adjust the brightness as they like.

I'll assume that 99% of the photos of inanimate objects in the Wiki are no different from those from household shop. If to put a price tag next to it, you can send the entire Wiki to discounted product sites. Nevertheless, these photos are valuable and have their own history.

He does not understand that everything that concerns people and their murder requires a careful approach, a different assessment of value.

If the photo is not covered in Valeria Marquez's fresh blood, then it has no place in the Wiki. Wiki is a sheet of letters from the keyboard, the rest is prohibited. A great way to kill Wiki.

I also understand his ulterior motives, and that's where he started his speech. He's sure that Valeria Marquez is not JFK, and she should not take place in the Wiki. And it doesn't matter that Bing has 31200 links about this event. What people write, what they are interested in, and even this rare photo obtained in a complex way - there is no place for this in the Wiki. Seregadu (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed you deleted the only photo of the murder scene on the Internet - and that's why the photo should be removed. If that's the only photo then how can we verify any claims about the photo? Wikipedia is not the place to put new content about a criminal case into the public domain. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I see , you're also a proponent of "delete everything, I wasn't there, I don't believe it".

You haven't asked the author of the photo posting - which source did the photo come from? Is this an authoritative source?  You didn't think that if the author posted it, it means that he was also guided by the Wiki rule about "authoritative sources".   You have the same aspirations to delete everything. I ask you: which photo in the article about the "Murder of Valeria Marquez" would suit you? Picture of her corpse only? What other options do you have?

And you didn't bring the photo you found, you suggest deleting someone else's photo instead of finding out about the source. You don't check anything, you delete it right away, without checking.  This is abnormal behavior on Wiki.

2. Do you think that this photo will help (or, conversely, confuse) the investigation to solve the crime? :) :)  I wonder how you will respond so that there is a conclusion: delete the photo. Seregadu (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again to evaluate the behavior of 2 participants and then they will ask the Administrators to protect them from attacks. There is no need to commit dangerous and harmful actions, and then you will not have to ask for protection. Start with yourself. Nobody ever admits their mistakes. Everyone is only interested in protecting their honor. No one is ready to admit the damage to the development of Wiki in their actions.

According to the photo. You suggest deleting because you were not provided with a caption for the photo.

I spent a huge amount of time - exactly 1 minute. There are already a huge number of variants for this photo. Bright, green, right, left, inside, outside, whatever. Photo brought by Potaxie678. Perhaps it was the first photo at the time of publication. Potaxie678 was blocked. But his photo is correct! Why was he blocked?

His photo is really dark, although it was taken with the light on. Photo title "The aesthetics days after the murderer of Valeria Márquez". And this name very accurately reflects the nature of the photo. And those bright ones are not suitable, in my opinion. Seregadu (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We are safely within WP:CIR territory now with this series of comments. Not to mention the repeated personal attacks. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"personal attacks" -- favorite expression of most who only delete. See the edit history of this page. ZimZalaBim only removes text, without adding anything, not a single new sentence. To edit what others have brought. That's his mission.

You are forgetting, or deliberately diverting, the fact that any attack is based on someone's actions. Let's first discuss actions, and then give them a name.

With this attitude, soon there will be nothing left of the article Seregadu (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A slightly early closure per SNOW, but at day 6, it is near unanimous (exception is the now blocked sock) that this is BLP1E. – robertsky (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Valeria Márquez (influencer) → Killing of Valeria Márquez – Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. This is a BLP1E situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support - I can't find any sigcov suggesting subject was notable prior to her death. All or nearly all of the sources in the article were written after / in response to her murder. Zzz plant (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Elena Huelva's article, is literally same like this, everything happened after her death literally. Potaxie678 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: Upon reflecting on WP:MURDER I'm amending this requested move to "Killing of Valeria Márquez. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)]

  And what about Sabrina Duran's article? She has a very short biography and isn't well-known. Potaxie678 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per BLP1E. Subject appears to be known solely for this (unfortunate) event. Hy Brasil (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just like Elena Huelva, please don't do this, I can improve the article, it I swear Potaxie678 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Hy Brasil (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Elena Huelva is not very similar. She didn't just die. She became a notable activist, led a very visible life, worked with several charities, helped educate the public, amassed a million followers on Instagram, wrote a book, created a charitable foundation, established a grant program, and received notable awards. She did all that after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

But Valeria's article is backed by reliable sources, such as "20 minutos" Potaxie678 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The 20minutos source was written after Ms. Márquez died. There are reliable sources that discussed Ms. Huelva before she died, so she is notable for something other than her death, and it would not make sense to rename the Elena Huelva article to Death of Elena Huelva. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked the creator of the article, Potaxie678, as a sock account, so they will no longer be able to participate in this discussion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support.- Márquez is clearly known for her murder. Like many articles about murders, all the biography details just could be simply mentioned in it. Dieguettee (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. Reasonable explanations for the title change. I would suggest implementing the same procedure to influencers who died in the same way, María José Estupiñán Sànchez (career equal to Marquez's in terms of timing, whose death was semi-filmed) and Sabrina Duràn (whose death was filmed by those present, also she was known as a criminal with a long history of crimes). MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.