Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauro Delgado


 * 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. Verifiability was a concern here, but it appears from the discovery of new sources that the fact of the subject being a prominent actor is at least verifiable even if his awards were not. After those sources were presented, there were no additional arguments to delete, so the consensus is to keep. Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lauro Delgado

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I have found no reliable sources to verify this BLP article. Mattg82 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE as actor died in 1977, so this is not a BLP violation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article provides no sources establishing notability and good faith searches have not uncovered any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Rather a lengthy career stretching from 1957 through 1995, and add his three FAMAS Award nominations... Best Supporting Actor for Laban sa lahat (1958), Best Supporting Actor for Claudia (1966), and Best Supporting Actor for Salamisim (1968)... and I think we have our neccessary presumption toward notability. The article as nominated lacks sources... but as his career seems verifiable let's get ourselves some input from Filipino Wikipedians before tossing, shall we?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Three FAMAS -- the Philippines' Oscars -- nominations makes him not just "borderline" notable. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that those awards would make a person notable but I'm not clear on where you're sourcing those wins from. If you can just pardon my obtuseness and give me a link I'll switch my vote above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * References for Filipino entertainers prior to the 1980s are really hard to find, even hard copies. IMDB, although not considered as reliable source IMDB lists him as having three FAMAS nominations. Unless we find evidence to contrary, we'd have to trust that, unless we're into deleting really hard to find information because we can't find "reliable sources" even though we can use acceptable ones. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly WP:V requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source". I'd find it hard to read an AfD nomination as anything other than a challenge to any and all claims of notability.  On a process level, there needs to be a source for the FAMAS awards before they can be evidence of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly we're now deleting articles on w/c references are absolutely impossible to find. On these circumstances, I'm willing to accept IMDB sources unless there are evidences to the contrary. I've found an unofficial website (the FAMAS doesn't have an official website, LOL go ahead and delete the main FAMAS article) but they didn't list the nominees. The winners are almost the same to the IMDB list although it's off by one year (probably because the FAMAS Awards for say 2000 are awarded for performances on films screened on 1999). I don't think there'd be sources that'll pass WP:RS at least for non-Filipinos who don't know these things. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite searching the unofficial FAMAS site (which is a particularly dodgy looking site) I can't find any evidence of who maintains it or who is responsible for its accuracy or otherwise, and IMDB specifically denies its own accuracy, so they're just not acceptable sources. Sources are reliable for their purpose or not - you can't declare them to be reliable simply because that's all you've got.  Yes, I note the FAMAS award article is entirely unsourced but (a) I'm not in the habit of starting AfDs just to make a point, and (b) it seems likely that reliable sources about the FAMAS awards could be found substantiating their notability, even if they didn't specify full lists of nominees and winners.  Invoking the provisions against systemic bias isn't relevant here because you're not invoking them to justify Delgado's notability but rather to suggest that sources probably exist backing the claim that he's won these awards.  There's no reason to have that presumption, because there's no reason to presume he won the awards. I'm sympathetic here, but come on, you really can't provide ANY reliable source?  (I've run into this problem before in trying to justify notability of roleplaying games - the field just doesn't produce reliable sources, almost all the journalism is blogs - and I was as frustrated then as you probably are now.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that reliable sources did not or never existed like come on, it's really hard to find English sources for contemporary RPGs -- they're barely notable at all; it's harder to find reliable sources on Philippine entertainment news from the 1960s, even if they are notable if Wikipedia existed in the 60s. It's just impossible to look for them 50 years after the event happened. Most current Manila newspapers were created in the late 1980s: all archives in the internet only run up to 2000 at the earliest. For example, this has news reports that the 1968 FAMAS Awards really happened, and the President of the Philippines was the guest of honor. However the scans of the newspaper articles did not mention the nominees. But it shows that it really happened and the unreliable sources turn out to be right after all. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're putting the cart before the horse. You're saying, 'Clearly this would be notable, if only there were reliable sources.'  But Wikipedia says, 'If there are not reliable sources, it's not notable.'  It's not an arbitrary rule or a technicality.  The reason we require the sources, even for things we know intuitively must be notable, is because there is no value in content that we cannot verify.  It's simply not useful to anyone, because it's impossible to trust its accuracy.  It may have been put there by a well-meaning expert in the field, or it may be a hoax by a troll.  The requirement for notability at AfD says, 'We'd love to have an article on this, but without sources it's simply impossible to put any verifiable content in the article.  If there's no content, there's no article, and hence we're deleting it until such a time as you find sources.' If you can't find sources, then you have a bigger problem than notability because you're unable to write a verifiable article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The two "unreliable" sources correspond to The Manila Times news article written 40 years ago -- the three sources are identical on stating who were the winners. Now it's virtually impossible to find reliable sources on something that happened 40 years ago. Ergo, we're pretty sure that at least the unofficial website wasn't started by a "troll" (LOL). We've verified that the 1968 FAMAS Awards occurred, the three sources were identical on who won, hence we essentially verified the two "unreliable" sources as verifiable ones; hence we trust the now verified "unreliable" sources to be trustworthy when it comes to the nominees.
 * As what I've said, this is not an article about role-playing games which reliable sources were certainly not published, this is an article about a person who was nominated for a national acting award 40 years ago in which reliable sources were certainly published but are currently impossible to find. If the internet was invented in the 60s this would've been an easy keep. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Manilla Times seems like it would be a reliable source - are you able to cite it? Doesn't have to be an online link, just a date, page number, and quote.  As for the others, using one unreliable source to corroborate another unreliable source is (a) dodgy, and more importantly, (b) original research, which is something else that Wikipedia frowns upon. Get someone else to say that the two sources agree, and have them publish that opinion in a newspaper, book, or academic article, and then you can quote it. You can't say "if the internet was invented in the 60s this would be an easy keep", because in saying that either you're referring to a reliable source as to the way things were in the 1960s, or you're not (and thereby asking us to treat your personal opinion, however well informed, as a reliable source). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really can't use the Manila Times since it doesn't mention him. Anyway the guy is dead since 1977 so we cannot cite WP:BLP now. I've added two current references w/c also doesn't mention his FAMAS nomination but should be enough to determine that he was quite a popular actor back in the day. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep His lengthy career seems verifiable, and post-WW2 pre-internet notability to the Phillipines is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Now if someone could only fly there within the next couple days, learn tagalog, and then look in old archives for hardcopy sources to support the few books online, it would be terrific.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:V. IMDB is acceptable for basic facts unless there is some reason to doubt it (there have been such cases, but articles there on major figures are generally checked)   DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 7 December 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.