Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne Oseña-Paez


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Daphne Oseña-Paez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We have a big issue with this article. While it does appear that she is notable, all of the sources currently in the article were added by paid editor (AKA ) who heads a PR firm: original creation HERE. Per this discussion, and this interview with Tony Ahn, where he was asked: "What if a client hasn’t had anything written about them?"

His response is harrowing: "This is an issue that isn’t impossible to get around. You have to have press coverage to get on Wikipedia. So I have placed articles in the press on behalf of clients. If you don’t have press, I can get you press – because I work in PR. I can set up an interview with a newspaper, and then write the Wikipedia article. If I have to get you two insertions, then the Wiki article it’s 75,000 Philippine pesos for the whole lot."

This obviously calls into question every single reference added by Tony Ahn (and his username Noraft) as it may have been planted by his PR firm. Given that there are zero other references in the article other than the ones added by Noraft, I think we have no choice but to TNT the article and blacklist these sources from being used for notability should the article be recreated. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fully agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's statements above, every source added by Tony Ahn's PR firm is suspect and should be discounted. This is made pertinent by the fact (see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard) that Ahn often plants sources in local newspapers to establish a basis for writing an article for his firm. Once you remove these sources, there is nothing left to indicate the encyclopedic importance of the article subject, indicating WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR failures.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahn's firm was also keen to point out their creation of this article for the sake of publicity .--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't add much to the obvious subversion detailed above. This is an inherent issue in lacking disclosure (COI editing, especially PAID). The problem is intrinsic - if an editor misrepresents, then where does it stop? This is similar to the fruit of the poisonous tree argument in WP:BOGOF, but applied not to legal aspects, but to the independence and reliability of the sources presented in bad faith. Widefox ; talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the article on this subject's main tv show Urban Zone is suffering similar issues, and has the same undisclosed COI/PAID editor(s) . This logically follows, as if there weren't sources for the BLP, there wouldn't have been sources for her tv show. In that respect all arguments above would apply unless proved otherwise, and that articles fate should be included here, or could speedily follow this AfD. Widefox ; talk 12:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that the article on her TV show doesn't meet the notability guidelines completely independently of the tainted sources. The tainted sources just make it more obvious. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The process involved here shows why we need to be vigilant against the view "it is mentioned in a paper, that shows notability." WIkipedia is not supposed to be gamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A case reflecting one of WP's several Achilles' heels that needs to be remedied. Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. as promotional editing which take precedence over considerations of notability.
 * Although this editor appears to be responsible for having himself arranged for the sources present, this apples not uniquely to this article: every interview with any performer or business figure in any newspaper or magazine was almost certainly placed by a paid press agent, and none of them can ever be accepted for notability, nor are they a RS except to the extent that the subject's own statements are for routine facts, and their own view of what to say for their motivations--assuming that even these are their own view and not what their PR consultant told them to say.  DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam and echoing DGG's point above, which should be written into WP:RS as a reminder to those who add these sources in good faith. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete with TNT - Actually looking around, it seems like she's been covered by some sources, though considering the history of the article, it's possible that at least some of those coverage were intended for the creation of this article. As such, it's probably best to start over in this case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourcing is wretched, not even up to the lower standard Tony Ahn was trying to get accepted in September 2016 (here).  The content of the page is fluffery upon flattery, nothing encyclopedic about it. – Athaenara  ✉  15:38, 20 January 2018 (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.