Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregoria de Jesus


 * 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 Keep. Tyrenius 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gregoria de Jesus

 * — (View AfD)

I cannot see how this person is notable enough for an wikipedia entry. Chris 73 | Talk 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Keep latest rewrite -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I think she is noteworthy because she served as the caretaker in the Katipunan. She also became sort of the mother of the children who are caught in the crossfire between the Filipino revolutionaries and the Spaniards.D2B 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, or else delete and re-create better. The Andrés Bonifacio article describes Gregoria de Jesús as "a rebel leader in her own right", even though the article in question doesn't mention anything about that. So she might be notable, but the current article provides no evidence of notability. --Quuxplusone 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject seems notable. Her notability is established by her autobiography, which I found in the Filipinas Heritage Library. Also, she was featured in Tales of Courage & Compassion, Stories of Women in the Philippine Revolution, a book by Lilia Santiago. I suggest that the editor use these sources (and others; I'm sure there are many) for citation and to further improve and expand the article. ← A NAS  Talk? 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions.   --  &rArr;  bsnowball  06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if no sources are quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cited now. ← A NAS  Talk? 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep try reading the article, leadership role in an independence movement is notability. stop wasting time with nominations like this, there are tags &  for the article's problems. could nominator also please read WP:CSB &rArr;  bsnowball  15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the article she is the vice-president and the keeper of records and the seal of the Katipunan, with no indication of the significance of the Katipunan. From the article there is no indication of her significance. It seems the group is significant, and the vice president may be significant, too. I have no problems with keeping the article. Nevertheless, would the above voter also please do some WP:NPP sometimes to see what kind of garbage is coming in any minute, and how we have to check the accuracy and notability in a short time using incomplete information? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the article had been there for 5 days! to spell it out: tag potentially useful articles as unsourced, and in need of cleanup if you can't be bothered checking them yourself. that you (& other npp folks) "don't have the time" is because of your/their apparent need to immediately afd anything outside of your/their personal experience, this is no exageration, it is effectively what you/they are doing. &rArr; bsnowball  15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did that 5 days come from? I put up the AfD right after the article was created, since at that time i doubted the noteworthiness of the topic. This is proper procedure. You don't have to like it, but deal with it. WP:NPP is definitely needed, and no matter how hard we try there will always be some articles that survive AfD or may even get undeleted after a speedy. And, before you get too pissed off, please try to remember that we are both trying to improve Wikipedia. Have a look at the article now. I think it is much better than it was before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, is this a copyvio from here? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to rewrite this article. The editor doesn't seem interested. ← A NAS  Talk? 11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (rewrite) I have completely rewritten and overhauled the article with expanded information, cited from reliable sources. It actually turned out to be an interesting subject. Anyways, I think that should do it. ;-) ← A NAS  Talk? 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! Many thanks for your work. I changed my vote to keep (above). -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) ← A NAS  Talk? 17:55, 28 December 2006 (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.