Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Rey Uy


 * 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__. ✗ plicit  13:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Mel Rey Uy

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

Run of the WP:MILL and fails WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity,  and Philippines. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although there appear to be some database entries referring to this individual, none of them meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, particularly with regards to significant coverage. The only reference currently provided in the article (aside from the in-text external link) is also not SIGCOV, as it by no means covers the individual in any depth. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BISHOPS. Nominator makes no suggestion that a BEFORE has utterly failed to substantiate this, although I bet he was born in 1968, not 1868. A paucity of information is likely to represent systemic bias reflecting existing coverage disparities of Filipino topics and people in general, and not a good reason to delete this article when North American/European equivalents will have plenty of obvious, easy-to-find-on-the-Internet coverage. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BISHOPS is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline or policy. I personally couldn't find any high quality sources on this individual, but if you do find any, please point us to them so we can evaluate the notability of this individual.
 * Your claim that the lack of reliable sources is due to systemic biases of coverage may be true, but that's not really relevant. It is not our place to attempt to calculate the relative reporting biases of all reliable sources in the world, and this consideration is not a particularly good argument, because again, it's not part of how notability is evaluated on Wikipedia. We cannot and do not Keep articles based on the idea that they would meet notability criteria in some hypothetical scenario designed by individual editors. If there are no good sources on this individual (and none have been provided so far), then they are not considered notable and the article should be deleted. Any speculation on what equitable reporting practices might look like is, well, speculative and based on individual editor opinion instead of the relevant policies and guidelines. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bishop notability is a longstanding precedent, if Wikipedia had them, even in other languages. See Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy for example. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BISHOPS per Jclemens's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How does this pass GNG? I could find no sigcov. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was explained by Jclemens and Sojourner in the earth that it really meets GNG. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The only significant coverage I can find is in articles that simply regurgitate the contents of this Vatican announcement; but on the other hand, I tend to agree, per WP:BISHOPS, that Mel Rey Uy is very likely to be notable by virtue of his status, even if the sources that would demonstrate this are offline or non-English. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability requires at least some verifiable evidence per WP:NRV. If no such evidence can be provided beyond his occupation, I think it would be a stretch to call him notable. I'm aware of the issue of offline or non-English sources, but if there is nothing verifiable that establishes notability, that's a problem. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what that part of the guideline means; what would constitute verifiable evidence that sources exist, other than the sources themselves? As far as online sources go, there is significant coverage in several articles such as, , , but since these are all functionally identical I only count them as one source for notability purposes; and then there are numerous passing mentions such as , , . If we had little or no information on this person then I would argue for deletion; but since there's enough information available to write a decent-sized article, and since it's almost certain that there will have been plenty more written about him in local papers etc., I'm leaning keep. Note that the section you cited, WP:NRV, also says: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clear consensus to keep diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the point of guidelines like WP:BISHOPS is that we can presume there are sources off-line and/or in other languages that would enable a WP:GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - these essays are non-binding but strongly indicate we should keep this article:
 * WikiProject Religion/Notability guide ("WP:BISHOPS")
 * WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide ("WP:NBISHOPS")
 * Articles for deletion/Common outcomes ("WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES")
 * There are sufficient reliable sources to make a reliable article. Some examples:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:39, 23 June 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.