Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louie Ignacio


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Louie Ignacio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable director. The one reference that was on the page didn't mention him at all. I can't find any significant coverage of him with a Google search. Appears to be a vanity page that lists a bunch of unverifiable credits. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Broad (200+ results), if shallow, coverage of him pops up on google news. The articles aren't about HIM, as opposed to being about his work, or about an actor within his work, but the aggregate breadth seems sufficient to establish notability for me.  Fieari (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm ignorant of the requirements, because this is my first deletion nomination, but I used WP:DIRECTOR as a guideline before I submitted. There's four possibilities for notability there, and I don't believe he meets any of them: (1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (2) he did not originate a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (3) He did not play a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that was the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (4) His work has not won significant critical attention, which is the only part of (4) that would be relevant. I didn't know that being briefly mentioned in 200+ Google results is an indication of notability in any Wikipedia notability guidelines.  I could be wrong, so that's why I'm asking for feedback on this. LAroboGuy (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi – WP:DIRECTOR is essentially a secondary notability guideline (SNG). The subject could qualify for an article despite not meeting the SNG if they meet primary notability guidelines such as WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. North America1000 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks. I did notice the phrase ""Significant coverage" gets a lot of emphasis on both of those pages. I don't think this subject has received "Significant coverage" in any sources,  reliable or otherwise. LAroboGuy (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft instead as, yes, there are sources, but still not to the levels of convincing notability, the article is still actually questionable because of this, and I'm not seeing anything else to suggest substantially convincing. It's best therefore Drafted and improved if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  04:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  05:29, 20 July 2016 (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.