Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Abadilla


 * 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. Consensus is that there aren't enough independent, reliable sources available to support an article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ariel Abadilla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat)  08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - although article is unsourced, the subject appears to have also been (besides his role as the only Ambassador to Ireland from the Philippines) a senior civil servant at a national level within the Philippines government under Presidents Aquino and Duterte (including as an Undersecretary for Civilian Affairs and Security in the Department of Foreign Affairs in or around 2016-17 - the Undersecretary role seems to be an equivalent to a Deputy Secretary in a US Govt department) (for sources, see e.g. here, here, here). This article does seem to fit in with WP:POLOUTCOMES Bookscale (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Even for ambassadors and senior civil servants, the notability test is still not just the ability to offer technical verification in the government's own self-published primary sources that the person held the claimed roles — the notability test remains the depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage the person did or didn't receive in media. Regardless of the notability claim being made, the notability test for people always remains dependent on the quality of the referencing that can be used to support the notability claim, but nothing that's been shown either in the article or in this discussion adds up to notability-making sourcing. Yes, these would be notable roles if he could be properly sourced for them — but no, they aren't "inherent" notability freebies that exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: The state of an article (including lack of referencing) is not a reason for deletion necessarily - and only one of the sources I cited above is a Philippines government post. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that only one of them is a Philippine government post — but a second one is a post from the US embassy to the Philippines, and is thus still a government source rather than a notability-building reliable source. And the one that's actual media just namechecks his existence in a list without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus isn't a notability clincher all by itself if it's the only non-governmental real-media source you can show. And while it is true that a poorly sourced article can be spared the guillotine if it can be shown that the necessary type and depth and quality and range of reliable sourcing exists out there to improve the article with, that only comes into play if genuinely notability-supporting sources are actually located and shown — it is not true that any person gets exempted from having to have any notability-supporting sources just because the article claims something that sounds like it should be notable. The quality and range and depth and volume of sourcing that a person can show to support the notability claim is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Presumably, it doesn't have sufficient level of notability; particularly by paying heed that it doesn't possess any/enough reference(s) to cover the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: Why presumably? Have you checked? Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - have any Philippines-based editors checked this guy's notability? It would be good to get some input from them. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: no WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - raising again whether any Philippines-based editors can make more-informed comments about the notability of the subject (all commenters involved to date are foreign, including me)? I've left a message at the Philippines-based noticeboard about this and would appreciate the AfD not being closed until a reasonable time has elapsed to allow anyone to comment here. Bookscale (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that the lack of Philippine-based comment is itself a form of comment, such as "none of the Filipino editors who have seen this feel strongly enough about it to disagree with the existing comments". Again, notability is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says — so it's entirely possible that Philippine-based editors just don't actually have anything new to add because the sources that would change the equation here just don't exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the "argument from silence". I thought it was worth asking because there may have been more local (or probably more importantly, local language) sources that might refer to him more closely that we international editors are not aware of. From the comment below it seems there may not be, which is fine - asking the question was clearly worthwhile. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - As a Filipinx editor, I can assert that there isn't enough "Significant coverage" for this official. It's possible there'll be more coverage in the future, but he seems to have been elevated to senior posts too recently to have picked up coverage. - Koakaulana (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Koakalauna - appreciate you contributing to this. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.