Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al G. Pedroche

Al G. Pedroche

Al G. Pedroche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PEACOCK, reads like an election campaign handout, notability unclear, unreferenced, orphan MuffledThud (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I glean that the person referred to herein is an advocate of one universally acceptable cause of righteousness in society and as such deserves a chance on wiki with allowance for editing and possible addendum whether favorable or adverse. As a masscom student, I know Al Pedroche and I have interviewed him once for my thesis in journalism. I may have a bias for him but I believe in his advocacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star bituin (talk • contribs)

• Comment Being a social or political activist is not reason for inclusion. However, if he were an influential activist, there would be plenty of articles with which to establish notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable Filipino press figure. I have added reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. The article needs a lot of editing, but that's not a reason for deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Baileypalblue - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have to wonder (and I'm not being sarcastic) why someone who's notable has to create an article about himself instead of letting others do it. Also, Google only turns up 45 hits, and Googlenews 0.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you search under alternative spellings of his name/search with other keywords associated with him. As for his motivation, he seems like an aggressively self-promotional kind of guy, but systemic bias may have something to do with the fact that nobody else wrote an article on him. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe there's a reason why no one wrote an article about him. (And for the record, alternate spellings of his name didn't help much.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Despite failing WP:CREATIVE, he has recieved significant coverage from (I'm hesitant to say reliable) sources independent of the subject. All sources make only passing mentions of Pedroche. !vote changed to Delete. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sources currently in the article may not address the subject in as much detail as we'd like, but they do establish notable facts about him. I don't have time to do more research, which in any case would be better done by someone more familiar with the subject area, but I think research into his work would easily demonstrate his notability. Bear in mind that lack of sourcing per se is not a reason for deletion and that there's no time limit for improving Wikipedia articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Burden of Proof lies on the creator. Also, someone like Dan Paladin of Newgrounds fame may be regarded as a hero in some crowds, but that doesn't mean he's notable. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage of him in any reliable third-party source. He's mentioned in some news articles, but the mentions are pretty trivial and always in relation to some other topic. No evidence of notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)