Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodolfo Cuenca


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Rodolfo Cuenca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a borderline attack page. Not enough coverage is present to pass GNG. 2Joules (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject is a major figure in the Martial Law era in the Philippines. The subject is a major backer of former President Ferdinand Marcos, and was one of the most prominent businessmen during Marcos' administration. Though the tone needs work.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (but fix tone) - Concurring with Hariboneagle927's assessment above. A cursory search for literature about Cuenca shows that he receives prominent coverage in virtually every major scholarly work about monopolies during the Martial Law period, including Abinales and Amoroso (2017); Shirmer (1987); Manapat (1991); Celoza (1997); Sidell (1999); Studwell (2010), and so on.  Search results for News articles also produce a trove of results, ranging from the Marcos era to the early 2010s.  The subject is definitely notable.  The tone of the article just has to be fixed.  That's difficult, because much of even the scholarly literature on Cuenca has a negative slant.  But perhaps the original editor (or whomever chooses to take over the article) can be as careful as possible using adjectives in the narrative? I'd volunteer to help out but I'll be preoccupied for at least another month, so I can't commit to doing cleanup here. - Alternativity (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" I vote to keep, but definitely need to fix tone and add sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missvangie (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2018 (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.