Talk:Phil De Luna

Resume-style language
I am going to remove the tag for now in hopes that feedback might be provided instead. It's difficult with a subject like this to avoid resume style because notability needs to be established and researchers are best described through titles, awards, etc. The article avoids superlatives and squishy language ("world-leading," etc.) and the facts are allowed to speak simply. I will be happy to search for any further material suggested to expand. Greenbound (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This article sounds like a commercial for the persons personal "brand", no better than a LinkedIn. This person seems to have won many awards and involved in self-promotion, but it their actual impact enough for an article? NoShow (talk) 8:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tackling this
The concerns over promo language are fair. I have taken the big step of removing the body, which had largely been added anonymously, rather than trying to parse every line for POV. The lead is dense with claims of notability but it's all neutrally stated, so it can stand. I think I will just do the awards and notable citations as a list to avoid any slippery phrasing. Does this work for everybody? Greenbound (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Published
No worse than many academic's articles - moved out of draft space.

Have trimmed some of the adjectives to better conform with MOS:PEACOCK Somej (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A look at sources
A short look at sources on the article, going in order, as of this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_De_Luna&oldid=1130215448
 * 1: : This doesn't say anything about him being the youngest director of a program and doesn't name him either.
 * 2: This is a "staff" profile for De Luna, who works for the NRC, on the NRC's self-published website. It is affiliated with him directly and we should "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."
 * 3: A mixed prose/quotes interview with De Luna by Phillippine Canadian News. Not independent of the subject and largely primary.
 * 4: It is a recognition but not not sure if it's meant to convey further meaning. It's a list of about 6600 names, and De Luna's is in it. Maybe someone else can speak more to the significance of this.
 * 5: Primary source (raw citation count figure) and like discussed on the AfD, Google's count isn't very accurate. It doesn't talk about "top 1% by field and publication year" either.
 * 6: U of Toronto MSE department website blurb - good for telling us he was one of the award winners for 2019.
 * 7: This is a resume page for the subject.
 * 8: U of Toronto MSE department website news blurb about De Luna as a new faculty. Not sure what can be said about notability for appearing on your university department's website.
 * 9: The webpage for a book, and tells us that De Luna edited/authored it. What makes it notable, or even significant, is not clear.
 * 10: Another mixed prose/quotes interview with De Luna, this one by Canada's National Observer, about his running in an election.
 * 11: Same as 10, this one with Phillippine Canadian News.
 * 12: A deleted Tweet "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.", from De Luna.
 * 13: Barely mentioning that the subject lost an election.
 * 14: An opinion piece written by De Luna. Not sure what this does for establishing De Luna's notability.
 * 15: If I'm understanding the header correctly, this is sponsored content.
 * 16: Same comment as on 14.
 * 17: Like 2, another "staff"/"affiliation" profile on a self-published website, and may violate WP:BLPSPS
 * 18: It's a good brief recognition by the magazine, though with a lots of soundbites from him for the page.
 * 19: Primary source for the class of 2021 members.
 * 20: A recognition, with "The description above is provided by Phil." for the sentences written about him.

Overall, the sourcing tells us that subject has won what appears to be a few non-notable (broadly speaking) awards and recognitions, sources written or published by the subject, interviews with the subject, running in and losing an election, "staff" profiles, an online resume, sponsored content, and that he authored an educational book. We should look for more secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject and with significant coverage which currently a few of these at best seem to do. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know where to begin here. You're basically criticizing sources for proving the sentence behind them. We want a source from the U of T confirming he is an adjunct professor. Providing one is unacceptable? We want to back up the assertion he has published opinion in Canadian media. Linking to the Toronto Star is unacceptable? Like, what? Greenbound (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except for the potential BLP violations, I wouldn't say the sources are unacceptable. It's a look at each of the sources and how they can contribute to notability or not. I read through each article. Since you mention the Toronto Star, two of those articles were written by De Luna. Sure, it can provide support for content in the article, "but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". The other barely mentions to him to say he lost in the election to Carolynn Bennett, who the article is focused on. The main point is we need to improve the sourcing, and have it sound less like a CV or achievement list going back to the comments about advertorialization that people have made on the AfD. If the result is a "Keep", then we have more opportunity to pursue that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor Addition
This reads like a trimmed-down copy of his LinkedIn page. I made a small edit to make his election campaign sound less self-promotional, which I think helps a little, but I'm not sure this is salvageable. Ccoraf (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I reorganized things and toned it down a bit. Still needs more work, though. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)