Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn B. Pantig


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Evelyn B. Pantig

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A quick WP:BEFORE seems to indicate this is most likely an accurate article. Therefore, the subject is clearly not notable. –– FormalDude  talk  06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –– FormalDude   talk  06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been updated since I created this AfD. To be clear, I have not been able to find any significant coverage in sources to indicate the subject is notable. As it stands, the article does not pass WP:GNG. –– FormalDude  talk  09:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Also unable to find significant coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Previous version, was unfortunately, very poorly sourced. From the sparse info on her school's bio, I did a few search variations of "Evelyn Pantig + Arroyo", "Evelyn Pantig DOT", "Evelyn Pantig Aquino" and there were minor coverages that mention her role, although not so much about her life which I think is quite normal for such specific role at such an early period (from what I've gathered 90s-early 2000s) where she's promoting the tourism, culture and arts of her country, and not so much of herself. There was also an official note from former president mentioned in lede whom she worked who talked about her work, so whether those are enough to help establish BASIC notability would be the question. --WomenProj (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article.  The limited WP:SIGCOV in my opinion though still does not pass WP:BASIC (Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability). I still stand by nomination to delete. –– FormalDude   talk  02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --WomenProj (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete still fails notability guidelines. VladimirBoys (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BASIC per WomenProj's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 10 November 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.