Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo

Notability of Lisbo
In my opinion, Lisbo meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. These are the media sources that discuss him extensively, and which are cited in the same article (these are separate from the half a dozen other reliable media sources that mention him in a non-trivial fashion):


 * A profile in The Daily Tribune
 * A profile from Metro.Style magazine
 * A separate feature in Metro.Style magazine
 * Coverage in The Philippine Daily Inquirer

Moreover, per WP: Multiple sources, "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." I have listed more than 3 above.

For this reason, I am removing the notability tag on this article. The notability templates are added to articles which the tagger believes are reasonably likely to be non-notable. As mentioned, the figure in question has been covered extensively in reliable media sources.

If there are disagreements, I would welcome discussion here.

Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Talent Agency Information Accused, without evidence, of being "Promotional"
An editor has taken the liberty of removing factual information about Lisbo's talent agencies, with the accusation that such factual information is "promotional." I have since reverted these deletions. I can understand that someone not familiar with the Philippine entertainment industry would think that, but I would suggest they do more research into this rather than summarily deleting factual information and casting it as promotional, without evidence. As demonstrated in the article, such information is factual and newsworthy; the information was covered in the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star, thereby proving it is not merely "promotional" (unless, of course, they think two media outlets are somehow related to Lisbo and are trying to promote him). I suggest they do some Google News searching of "Star Magic" or "Rise Artists Studio."

Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assertion that "Lisbo is among the first batch of actors signed under Rise Artists Studio, a newly created talent management arm of Star Cinema" is entirely promotional, the studio is not notable so we do not need to mention it, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Star Cinema is the largest movie studio in the Philippines. That's their newest talent agency. Its formation received coverage in multiple news outlets (Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, PEP, etc.) How is that not notable, exactly? The entertainment industry in the Philippines is similar to Hollywood in the 1930-50s, i.e. the movie studios essentially were the talent agencies, and actors were contracted with the movie studios, only allowed to make movies with the single studio they were signed with. If you look up Wiki articles of Hollywood stars from those decades nearly all of them (Bogart, Bette Davis, Monroe, etc.) mention their significant contract signings.  In a similar fashion, most articles of Filipino actors, not just this one, mention to which talent agency they are signed. The statement you have quoted merely states that a talent agency exists, which was created by the largest movie studio in the country, and the actor in question is signed with that talent agency. That's a factual statement, which, in my view, is devoid of promotional content. It says nothing of the quality of the agency, unless you think merely staring a fact is intrinsically promotional in nature. And, to answer your question, no I do not work for them. The suggestion is laughable. Thanks. Koikefan (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok but you specifically requested a peer review to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved, I have did just that, now the article is up for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting content from an article without discussion, making passive aggressive comments, and casting aspersions on my neutrality by suggesting I am connected to a studio merely because I edit an article related to it (or, more likely, because it's easier to throw innuendo rather than deal with the substance of arguments) is not "providing a broader perspective on how it may be improved." Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is just simple removal. It is better to just say "Star Cinema" than "Star Cinema, the largest film production in the Philippines". MaccWiki (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Journal Article Reference
Once again, an editor has taken the liberty of removing factual statements without any basis for doing so. The statement is that Star Cinema is the largest film studio in the Philippines. After I provided a reliable reference, which is an academic source, it was again reverted by a different editor. I have now opened this discussion for the editors to please explain how a journal article is not a reliable resource. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Where in your provided source is the statement saying that Star Cinema is the largest Film production in the Philippines. MaccWiki (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 428 of the journal article that was cited. Perhaps you should read the references before you delete them in the future? Koikefan (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Much better if you added direct source, like just one tap then you can read the sentence. You added complicated source. MaccWiki (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of what you have provided is a legitimate justification for removal of content. Since you have pretty much admitted that you didn't bother reading the reference that you arbitrarily deleted, I would like to request that you revert back the page to what it was when I added the reference. If not, then I will have to refer this to an administrator for intervention since it is now apparently an edit war. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war?. You are the one adding source without mentioning that Star Cinema is the largest film production. You are must be banned at Wikipedia not me. MaccWiki (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I read the whole sentences in the source you provided but the source didn't mentioned that Star Cinema is the largest film production in the Philippines. So i remove it. MaccWiki (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 428 of the source states the following: "these women directors are also in the forefront of the largest film studio in the country, Star Cinema, and engaged from a primary posi- tion of mainstream commercial cinema." Did you download the journal article and go to page 428? Koikefan (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a joke!?. Download first. Read later?. Well you need to find MUCH BETTER SOURCE. for that statement. MaccWiki (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the content is sourced or not, there is absolutely no need to say that Star Cinema is "the largest film studio in the Philippines" in relation to this actor. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Third opinion: "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." I think that describes you perfectly well. Also, your initial reason for removing the content was because it was unsourced, now you have shifted your reason arbitrarily without any justification. What is "absolutely no need to say that"? That's not a justification, that's just a random statement. Can I can go to various articles and delete things using that justification? Just a little further up you tried, and failed, to say that Rise Artists was not notable, evidently because you had no idea it was the agency of the largest film studio of the Philippines. Evidently, there is a need to say something about the studio. Koikefan (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment above has nothing to do with any third opinion? My only bias here, is for a neutral encyclopedia. I will remove this article from my watchlist, please do not post on my talk page again. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Theroadislong. That is one of my reason why i remove that sentence. No need to say "the largest film studio in the Philippines". MaccWiki (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you have provided absolutely zero justification for removing the statement or an explanation as to why "there is no need", except an arbitrary personal choice. As demonstrated in the discussion above, there is apparently a use to pointing out that this is the largest studio in the Philippines because agencies relating to it are accused of being not notable. The way the statement reads now would be equivalent to saying "Apple, a software company in the United States." It is also not lost on me that the reasons for deleting this statement has changed a few times. First, it was because there was no source. Then, when a source was provided, MacWiki stated they could not be bothered to read the source. Then, when it was pointed out that this is not a legitimate reason to disregard a source, the reasoning is now apparently "I arbitrarily just don't like the statement." Koikefan (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION: Go on this page (Star Cinema). Then look if there is a statement claiming that Star Cinema is the largest film studio in the Philippines. If you didn't see that statement, means no need to add that statement to a BLP page like Jeremiah Lisbo. MaccWiki (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the reason for deleting this statement has now shifted for a staggering 4th time. The reasoning now is, since it doesn't appear in X other article, it shouldn't appear in Y article. That's not a legitimate reason either. But it's also a nonsensical reason because: IT LITERALLY SAYS SO IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT ARTICLE. I quote: "It is the country's largest motion picture company in terms of revenue, ticket sales, and number of films released annually." Koikefan (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP: TASTE and WP: IDONTLIKEIT. Specifically: "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted." Also: "Wikipedia is not about what you like and do not like. An article or section that fully conforms with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion must remain, even if one or a few people do not like it." These describe the motivations behind your deletions, as well as Theroadislong's. So far, I still have not received a legitimate justification for removing the statement aside from personal distaste. I, on the other hand, have already explained my reasoning for including the statement: that it gives context to Rise Artists Studio and its notability. But either way, since the statement was there initially, and you deleted it, I think it's incumbent upon you to justify why you deleted it. So far, you have failed to do that with any justifiable or legitimate reason. Koikefan (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just like i said. It is just my opinion. You are taking seriously about others editors opinions. Removing a small content is not a big deal for you. MaccWiki (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you concede that you have no legitimate basis for removing the content and you simply removed it because you disliked it, which as stated above is not a justifiable reason for removing content. If that is the case, why do you not revert back the statement? Koikefan (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has no problem. So what's the reason why should i revert deleted contents from this article? MaccWiki (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Statement About Star Cinema being Largest Film Studio
As discussed above, there is currently a dispute as to whether a phrase about Star Cinema being the largest film studio in the Philippines should be included in this article. Please read the discussion above in its entirety (Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo) for full context before commenting. Koikefan (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the statement should be in the article. Whether or not its true, it's something that belongs in the article Star Cinema, not here. If readers want more info on Star Cinema, they can go to that article. We don't talk about the market share of Paramount Pictures in Tom Cruise's article... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. With respect, I do not think the analogy is apt. It would be more similar if Paramount were only one of 3 major studios in the United States, owned a talent agency (like CAA or William Morris), and signed Tom Cruise early in his career in a major contract signing. Also, if there were a need to clarify how notable Paramount is. There is indeed no need to say that Paramount is X, because Tom Cruise never signed an exclusive contract with them. There's a different discussion above where I outline the differences between the entertainment industries in the US and Philippines. Articles of modern Hollywood actors like Tom Cruise do not discuss contract signings with studios, but that's because they are not signed with those studios. On the other hand, articles of actors from Hollywood's golden age (the industry set up for which is more comparable to the Philippine entertainment industry now) do make frequent mention of the actors signing contracts. Therefore, I believe that to give proper context to these contract signings, a note about the notability of the studio they have signed with is appropriate. Koikefan (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: as for the reason why I believe Star Cinema's notability should be clarified: as discussed above, an editor previously deleted a mention of the talent agency that the actor was signed to (Rise Artists Studio), I believe because they were unaware that it was the agency of the largest film company in the country, and instead assumed it was just a random talent agency. I therefore believe, again based on previous comments and deletions by other editors, there is a need to clarify that this talent agency is notable. And one way of doing that is by clarifying that it is owned by the largest film studio in the country. Koikefan (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even with the exclusive contract, I don't think it is appropriate. If readers want more information, they can click through to Star Cinema. Here is a search of Wikipedia for singers with exclusive contracts (I figured there would be more of them), and none of the first results I looked at had anything like this. Same for actors here Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Star Cinema is ONE OF THE LARGEST FILM PRODUCTION IN THE PHILIPPINES. But not the largest.

One source is not enough to say that Star Cinema is the largest Film production in the Philippines. MaccWiki (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the statement based on the guideline of undue weight.  but was already a partyRobert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Robert McClenon. MaccWiki (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Not only is the information largely irrelevant to the topic of the article, it is also only backed by it being mentioned in passing in one source. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. Rather promotional and an unneeded detail for a biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove – There's another reason to remove it, and that is the problem of keeping duplicate content in two places at once in sync. That is, if and when the status changes (no longer the largest, changed names, merged, went out of business, etc.) editors are likely to make the update at the Star Cinema article, but be unaware that it required updating here as well. The information is one click away (on non-mobile devices, it's zero clicks away when you hover). I can't think of a good reason to import information here that would need to be kept in sync, when it's so easy to find the information. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)