Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Remperas


 * 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   no consensus. A further looking into this subject's merge prospects would be encouraged. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cathy Remperas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. Only "reference" is a dead link, and I cannot find anything which could have been the intended target. Searches have failed to produce any significant coverage in reliable sources. (Note: Article was previously prodded. Also was previously tagged for speedy deletion, and speedy-tag removed with reason given as "small amount of notability has been asserted".) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added sources to the article. They actually have a significant amount of coverage about her personally, more than I expected when I started my search. Silver  seren C 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - per silver seren. I am surprised that this much coverage exists for who has essentially starred in one reality show (which explains the "weak"). --Sodabottle (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notability is established, but no IMDB profile!!! notable to en.wikipedia, but still notable! - Gabby 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep enough independent coverage, Just needs better sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The references which Silver seren has added are two links to pages on the website of the company producing the television program on which she has appeared, and so are not independent sources, and exist essentially to promote the program. These pages give fairly brief coverage of her. There are also 5 external links. One of these is to imdb, which, apart from the fact that it is not a reliable source, does nothing to establish notability, since anyone who has ever had any role in any film can have an entry there. Two of the external links are again to promotional pages on the website of the company producing the television program. That leaves two externally linked pages which could be considered as independent coverage. These two give fairly superficial chat coverage. I do not see this as coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. I do not understand Gabby's comment at all: what does "notable to en.wikipedia, but still notable" mean? And there is an imdb profile. Finally we have Narutolovehinata5's comment: "enough independent coverage, just needs better sourcing". Independent coverage is sourcing: if it does not have adequate sourcing then there is not adequate evidence of independent coverage. Thus I remain quite unconvinced by the "keep" arguments: it still seems that there is inadequate evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The two other external links are articles entirely about her and they have a tremendous amount of information about her on them. Silver  seren C 11:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment But it still needs better sourcing; I found some sources but get this, it comes from the Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up Multiply page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - all I see is the standard reality show contestant coverage. That makes it a one eventer for me.  And the coverage, such as it is, isn't all that much either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A show is not a single event, just as being cast in a movie would not be considered a single event. Silver  seren C 18:25, 20 Apr::::il 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know some Wikipedia policy that states that? If so, please do link it to me. Silver  seren C 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Our polices and guidelines provide direction for editors to follow. Being a contestant on a single season of a reality show does not make for notability.  The coverage for contestants die off once the season is over after the media machine that drives it is on the next season.  This all in line with WP:N.  It does not need to be explicit statements covering every situation and eventuality.  Editors are to use the common sense and judgment. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot make the assumption that the news will die off, considering that it is still ongoing as it is. Have you read WP:NTEMP? Silver  seren C 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read it, and I'll also point out that you can't assume future coverage. However, typically those who aren't the season winner receive no further coverage. We don't write articles for people who might become notable in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that she's notable right now. Your argument that she isn't notable is based around the fact that the news now is just a short news burst, except you can't prove that because the news is still ongoing. Silver  seren C 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Which is why right now she is not notable.  The coverage is because of one event, the Big Brother show.  Now if she can parlay this appearance into a television career, then by all means have an article on that.  But it hasn't happened yet! -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added references that show that she was and is involved in other shows. Silver  seren C 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the significant coverage? Because I'm not seeing it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The significant coverage was already given in the articles about Big Brother. You don't need to have significant coverage for every single thing you do (that would be ridiculous for any article), you just need some significant coverage to cover GNG and then the rest needs to be coverage of any variety to verify the other information you are putting into the article. The sources I added are verifying her involvement in other shows, thus explaining that she is not just known for or actively doing only the Big Brother show. Silver  seren C 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for significant coverage for everythuing she does. I'm asking for significant coverage that demonstrates she has made it past the one event bar.  Passing mentions in articles do no demonstrate that this is so. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * delete or merge does not appear to meet "significant coverage in third party sources" - the only significant coverage is in primary promotional sources, with any third party coverage being trivial. And regarding an earlier comment if "she is notable now", Notability is not temporary, however "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. " (emph added). But this appears if anything WP:ONEEVENT. Active Banana (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep!!!! She is notable now, established her notability! - Thanks!!!! - gabby 14:46, 24 April 2010 (PST)
 * Wikipedia has a notability guideline WP:N - if you would like your !vote to be considered, you may wish to elaborate on how exactly the subject of the article meets Wikipedias notability criteria. Active Banana (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (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.