Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Agabin


 * 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   delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Agabin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google search brings up lots of social media accounts, but no independent sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The references provided for good notify of person's notability. --Editorkabaap (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of third party sources, the notability cannot be verified, he doesn't have enough coverage to have his own bio on WP. Eduemoni↑talk↓  16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article being updated and more references and more data is being added. --Editorkabaap (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources you are providing are not enough to suffice notability, you must be aware that notability is also not inherit, the sources you provided don't put him in the light of the coverage, just a mention isn't enough to establish relevancy. Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This was previously nominated for deletion per WP:PROD, and I added Proposed deletion endorsed to the page when I saw that. I can't say anything about this source since it is in a language I can't read. Two of the sources were written by Freelancer.com, and I'm not sure if those sources can be considered as independent as it says that the person participated in an event organised by Freelancer.com. The rest of the sources are clearly dependent sources: texts written by the person himself or by his employers Essays.ph and Noypi.ph. When writing this comment, I searched for the person's name on Google a second time and checked the first fifty hits. Lots of the hits go to the person's personal website (www.paulagabin.com) and are clearly dependent on the subject. I also found lots of user pages on various websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus, all belonging to this person, and those pages are obviously also dependent on the subject. Apart from that, I found one or two of the Freelancer.com press releases (unclear if dependent or independent) and something which looked like search engine results and WHOIS lookup requests (which provide no information on whether the person is notable or not). Thus, I can't find any evidence that the person is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and Cleanup - this source shows that the person is notable. However, expanding the piece and cleanup is required. :) Naughtybabe24 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - one single source that is possibly secondary but very brief is nowhere near enough to indicate notability. For people who are in the business of self-promotion, WP:SIGCOV becomes very important. --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Super Speedy Delete it now please! Administrator! Pretty Please?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtybabe24 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Expand - WP:SIGCOV has been well addressed in the video. It's in other language, but it clearly states that the person is notable. The article just need a cleanup and expanded. Stub tag is also recommended. 223.27.168.82 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 223.27.168.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Per definition, one single source does not equal significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (which is what WP:SIGCOV is all about). --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This guy is notable, particularly in SE Asia. Article could obviously be expanded, and could use more secondary sources, but rewrite has clearly fixed major problems since the AFD was placed with article having 0 references. The Wiki Jedi (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — The Wiki Jedi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep as the topic passes the WP:GNG and meets WP:BIO. Nickaang (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm asking out of curiosity here - how can you know that the subject passes WP:GNG, much less WP:BIO, when the article relies on five primary sources and one source which is possibly secondary, and is only useful to people who understand spoken Tagalog? If you are aware of other secondary sources, it would be great if they were added to the article.  --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BASIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whatever WP:RS is used here is trivial coverage. All other sources -- Noypi.ph and the other one -- fail RS. The Bandila news clip isn't about him, but the concept of online writing per se. – H T  D  16:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would indicate inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient independent coverage.  (And I am extremely reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to previously-unheard-of online sources when we're considering an article about a putative SEO expert.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have been unable to find independent reliable sources which substantiate any claims to notability for this subject per Wikipedia criteria. The second reference, a Reuters  item, states categorically: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. That, probably, says it all. Also, it is nearly two years old. And if Reuters says that, one can apply the same criteria to similar press releases published elsewhere. We need  recent significant third party independent and reliable coverage to take such articles seriously. I note, too, attempts have been made to tinker with the Afd tab on the article page. Yet another person seems to have created a Wiki account just to promote this person on this AfD page.  Notability per Wikipedia criteria  cannot be created by resorting to such ploys. The stats page here tells its own story.--Zananiri (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not temporary; coverage does not have to be recent to be usable. Havign said that, there is no coverage recent or of any vintage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Precisely. It seems nothing of any significance whatsoever has been published since the Reuters item appeared, which is what I was getting at.--Zananiri (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; no WP:INDEPTH coverage found in multiple reliable sources to denote notability as prescribed in WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Like most of those on here i'm mot seeing the depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also is it getting cold in here. LightGreenApple  talk to me  11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 13 February 2013 (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.