Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvin Joaquin


 * 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 delete by strength of arguments. The Delete arguments are soundly based in policy and give specific reasons as to why the sources included in the article and otherwise available are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The Keep arguments are vague claims of "proper" and "reliable" without giving any demonstration of how they meet the claimed properties. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Arvin Joaquin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test is properly sourced analysis of the significance of their work, not just technical verification that the work exists -- but the strongest notability claim here is that he's won minor awards that aren't instant free passes over WP:ANYBIO in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage. The question of whether any award counts as a notability-maker or not depends on the extent to which said award does or doesn't get media coverage about its award presentations to establish the significance of said awards, but the awards here are all sourced to their own self-published press releases rather than any evidence of media coverage. And other than that, seven of the other ten footnotes here are his own Instagram, a press release from his own employer, three alumni profiles on the self-published websites of his own alma maters, a blog and a podcast, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and of the three that are from real media two just glancingly namecheck his existence in comprehensive lists of all the new staff that his employer hired last year, which means they're not substantively about him. There's only one footnote here (#5, Ryerson Review of Journalism) that's both reliable and contains enough content about him to count for something -- but it takes a lot more than just one of those to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(keep) this article is properly sourced as opposed to the previous edit that mentioned it cited Joaquin's personal instagram account. As per the edit that the awards this writer received doesn't meet the WP:ANYBIO guidelines, this is false. In Canadian journalism, the National Magazine Awards is one of the most prestigious award-giving body. Further, Joaquin is an ethnic journalist whose work is known and noted by the Filipino community in Canada. 216.180.66.31 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Duplicate vote by IP, see new one below Pahunkat (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In order for any award to make its winners Wikipedia-notable for winning it, that award has to be one that gets media coverage about the award presentations, in order to establish the notability of the award. It doesn't matter how internally significant the award may be within its own contexts (even being valedictorian of a high school graduating class is an internally significant honour within that school, without being a reason why the person would necessarily earn inclusion in an international encyclopedia): if you have to rely on the awarding organization's own self-published press releases about itself to support the claim, because journalistic coverage about the award presentation in real media is nonexistent, then it is not an award that secures the permanent encyclopedic notability of its winners all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(keep) article is short but properly cited. Sources listed are reliably sourced. Queercan (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — Queercan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, it isn't properly cited. Reliable sourcing, for Wikipedia, means journalism about him in real media outlets — it does not mean Instagram, or press releases from his own employer, or alumni profiles on the self-published websites of schools, or blogs, or podcasts. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Queercan has since been blocked for sockpuppetry on this AfD. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(mild keep) I updated the article to include reliable source. I say keep this page. Joaquin seems like a new and emerging name in Canadian journalism. A google search shows his work, which some were awarded in Canadian media. He may not be a famous established journalist yet but he seems to made his mark in the communities his reporting on. I say mild keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.66.31 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — 216.180.66.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not create articles on people who may well go on to great things in the future, nothing is guaranteed. He may never amount to anything more than what he is at the moment, for all we know. We should wait until notability is established before creating articles on living people. Also, please don't vote more than once. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(mild keep) Based on the initial criticism, this page seems updated to be reliably sourced. With that, I saw mild keep. I searched this journalist on google and his work and opinions appeared on various conferences and articles in Canada. Some of them are the following:. 72.142.52.205 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — 72.142.52.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You do not make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by showing that he's been soundbited or tweet-quoted in an article about something else, or by showing that he has "speakers bureau" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, or by referencing anything to an organizational blog like "Local Love". The only kind of sourcing that helps to establish his notability is journalism, in real media, in which he is the subject being written about. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(keep) based on the reasons provided by 72.142.52.205 2605:8D80:442:946F:6D14:C68:EF74:3F58 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — — 2605:8D80:442:946F:6D14:C68:EF74:3F58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(keep) This is a page about a working Filipino-Canadian journalist. The original post was poorly sourced. I added links to fix this. Additional mentions I found for this person. DevonS32 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — — DevonS32 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is a confirmed sockpuppet of. Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See what I said above about how people don't get articles just because they gave soundbite in articles about other topics: the notability test is being the subject that's being written about, not just giving a few words of reaction-quote in an article about something else, so neither of these hits are doing anything to help establish his notability. And Capital Current is also the internal j-school publication of his own alma mater, which means it isn't even fully independent of him. WP:GNG is not just a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number — it's a matter of testing the sources for their depth, their quality, their type, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not all possible footnotes are necessarily always notability-building footnotes. Blogs and podcasts do not help to establish notability; press releases or "staff" profiles published by his own employers do not help to establish notability; j-school newsletters do not help to establish notability; his own social networking profiles do not help to establish notability; sources which briefly quote him as a giver of soundbite, but are not about him, do not help to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion has major issues with sockpuppetry and non-policy based !votes. That said, it's obviously a contested discussion without, yet, any specifically enumerated additional support for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per excellent reasoning of the nominator and per below Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mild keep The sources are legitimate and this page is cited properly. It’s also comparable to citations of some existing pages of people of same category as Joaquin. There’s precedence, so I say mild keep. 70.79.40.153 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You only get one vote. Please stop voting. Instead write comment. Please show me WP:THREE sources showing significant coverage of him because I haven't seen even one yet. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and the source table. The TV show that Joaquin hosts is new and appears obscure; the coverage of the show is largely press releases.  None of the sources are substantial coverage of Joaquin.  It's possible that this journalist will become more prominent in the future, but current sourcing can't support an article. (the page creator being a promotion-only account blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't help, either) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. The way to improve an article is to write prose against different sources, balanced appropriately, not to jam in as many references to Huffington Post pieces as you can muster. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:34, 9 March 2021 (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.