Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidy Nacpil


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Lidy Nacpil

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Some coverage, but not enough for notability. Most are mentions of things she's involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we can keep per WP:BASIC. Here's some of the sources I found via TWL
 * some background, not counting the interview
 * short background
 * some more background, and description of work
 * short description of some of subjects work
 * dissertation with a few pages of coverage
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC - I have been reviewing coverage and have started to update the article; Nacpil appears to be nationally and internationally known as an activist, particularly for climate justice, and appears to be recognized as such by national and international press and scholarly sources. Due to the amount of coverage over time and the breadth of her activism since the 1980s/1990s, further expansion of the article seems possible based on available sources in e.g. GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (but I'm leaning more into a delete. I mean...as a Filipino living in the Philippines, I'm not 100% sure about how notable she is here. Her first husband for sure is a much more well known activist (and was even the subject of a musical). There are other activists who have a much higher public profile than her. The way this article was written looks a bit more PR-ish to me than encyclopedic. But, yeah, sure, if there are sources then we can keep it, just that it's gonna be a weak one for me. -- Tito Pao (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Siroxo. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:BASIC on the sources mentioned above. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the sources listed by Siroxo above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 28 July 2023 (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.