Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. --MCB (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article/list/whatever is basically a rehash of 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines, excluding some events that shouldn't be in encyclopedias. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nom. The lists are redundant to the 2006 and 2007 in the Philippines articles.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Cleanup and Merge with 2006 and 2007. The names of assassinated leaders could be included in some list of assassinated people. Delete - Ravichandar 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I doubt the "assassinations" are really "assassinations," for example, "Jomel Bocalbos, (2007), Makati deputy chief of police (killed by robbers)" and these are fairly unnotable people (# Pablo Glean, (2006), Makati business manager and bodyguard of Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay -- job hazard?); of course the most notable exceptions are the assassinations of Akbar and Bersamin (which both were mentioned in 2007 and 2006 articles, respectively.). -- Howard  the   Duck  11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, it does seem like a set of clippings from regional newspapers. Reporting the death of the wife of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines etc. is unencyclopedic as the individual herself is non-notable as also reporting an earthquake which caused a minor incident as disruption as not a single human casualty- Ravichandar 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Argument against deletion:I was invited to share my thoughts (Vide my talk page). As a just one year user / editor here, my passion is to create articles about law and Filipino events or persons which caught global attention or do have the impact, inter alia. Now, I created this 2006-2007 articles with simple tones; when it was first nominated for deletion, I submitted my points and argument, and the result was no consensus. Why? I tried my best to EDIT AND ADD therein the top Philippine papers' most read and watched news of these 2 years to make it Wikified. I spent TIMES. I reproduce the template here:

The archived things there stated: "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." I am sure that a 2nd nomination for deletion might be improper since it said that all further comments must be on the discussion page, but not on a new one like this. I respectfully petition therefore, for NON-deletion of this article since most of the events thereat are fairly neutral and one of the top events in 2007. As PROOF: *Inquirer.net, top 10 Most Read Stories, Columns on INQUIRER.net in 2007- Our top newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer published the top events of 2007, above. I browsed about ON WHAT WIKI IS NOT as suggested by the Bot that notified me. I am sure, that I am entitled as creator of the article, to be given a Bill of Particulars that is, what sections or sub-sections of that Wiki rule inter alia did I or the article violate to merit deletion upon consensus or vote by the editors and admin here. While I admit that it is the first time I saw that there were 2 previous article already covering my article, still, my article satisfies very well the neutral and notable view of Wiki. There are lots of articles in Wiki that cover same thing, person or event example: Jesus, University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila. Many written articles on these overlap. WHEREFORE, premises consider, I ask that I be enlightened as to what rules of Wiki like What Wiki is not, inter alia, which makes my article squarely FOR DELETION. Thanks. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that other articles already exist with the exact purpose and arguably better formatting and presentation means that this should be deleted.
 * Note: The original author has a penchant for creating parallel and redundant articles, his The Joseph Estrada Verdict (created 15:22, 12 September 2007) which now redirects to Trial of Joseph Estrada, which was created hours earlier on 09:40, 12 September 2007. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: don't take anything said here too personally. It's clear just from looking at the page that you've put in a lot of work on this, and several parts of it are more detailed and better sourced than the articles 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines; on that score commendation rather than condemnation is in order. But given that there are already those two articles in existence, and that they follow the more usual format found here on wikipedia (so will more easily be found by people looking for digests of Philippine events), can I make the suggestion that you put in a little bit more time to transfer the information to those articles (thinking of yourself as an editor of the encyclopedia, rather than the creator of a particular article)? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The term "Standout Event" is opinion. What is a "standout event" to the author may not be a "standout event to anyone else". Also, the proclaimation that this from a newspaper basically makes this plagarism. There's better places for this on OTHER Wikipedia events. Also "I worked hard on it" is not a good reason to keep something Doc Strange (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the term "standout event" is just an unconventional way of saying "notable event", so you might like to rethink your rationale for supporting deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We already have 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines.  What's the use of this? Starczamora (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: as an article it's redundant to those you mentioned, but some of the content is more detailed and better sourced; "merge" would be preferable to "delete". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these "detailed" accounts are not fit for an encyclopedia. Although I'd like to see the sources in the timeline article of the events already found at the 2006 and 2007 articles to be added there. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, then why create a separate article, when you could actually include them from the articles I've mentioned? That is, if those information are notable and referenced enough. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with Doc Strange and Starczamorza above. Also 2006-2007 is a totally arbitrary period. If this article stays we might as well create Standout Events 1973-1992. No one is going to come to this page looking for information. maxsch (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines; some of this is actually more detailed and better sourced, so it would be a real waste just to delete it outright only because it covers the same period. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyWith all due respect, If there is no consensus, then I would say DO NOT DELETE; but I also agree with the wise argument of Paularblaster on merging, since precious materials are in my created article which are not in the 2 articles. So, I submit to the wise consensus of all in this debate. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" refers to the first nomination where actually only a few people took part. This is a second and different nomination. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all events should be copied; Wikipedia is not a link repository of every news event that happened, even small fires were even included in the "Timeline." -- Howard  the   Duck  04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. The five pillars of wikipedia make mention of combining the qualities of "general encyclopedia, specialist encyclopedia and almanac". I'd be the first to argue that these details shouldn't be given a string of individual entries, but as a list of almanac-type material it seems fine. Of course, my familiarity is mainly with 17th-century almanacs, where all this (including the editor's rationale) would be par for the course. Perhaps almanacs have changed? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the 2006 and 2007 articles, there are several entries that don't and won't have articles. The timeline article includes the most mundane of events such as fires, and so-called "assassinations." Actually the almanac "quality" isn't really an almanac where every event that made it to newspapers gets in, otherwise the articles about per-game results of the Premier League would not have been deleted. As you can see, as long as there's a reference, it gets in. Wikipedia isn't like that. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * rejoinder. Without going into the details and finer points of the 5 pillars and Wiki rules, suffice it to say that even learned jurists are highly divided on matters of paramount import. The United States Supreme Court Justices would often be highly divided on freedom and religion issues, not to mention education or abortion and even lethal injection. Who are or will be the readers of Wiki articles and bios? Are they just or will be Filipinos, or in generations to come, will Americans or British or French read my articles or these articles when they or their children would later study law and current events or history? Even [Vincent Van Gogh took his life since his paintings were not on the 5 pillars at that time. There are finer points and gray areas regarding deletion of articles. FIRES, yes mystic fires. As to whether they are common or not, it depends upon the reader/s or the time and places. 2007 mystic fires, do they happen in decades or just in 2007? Deaths, yes; if a janitor dies, that is not notable. Neither is the death of a parent of a judge. But when 3 parents of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justices, all died at once after the dwarf decision was released on BBC, etc. on April 6, 2006 and these 3 deaths (heart, heart, heart, respectively for Luz, Narcisa Puno and Hilario Davide, Sr.) 2006 - 2007, well, I really want to end this debate if someone would say that such is not in the 5 pillars. Now, if Rene Saguisag and wife Dulce Saguisag met their fate on Nov. 8, 2007, that would not be notable if one forgets how powerful they were in the news from 1987 until today. He is my counsel of record whose very own lawyer Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya made, drafted and finalized my decision - ruling that I consult elves. Oh, never mind Nancy Reagan or George Bush who talk to astrologers and Chang the mystic warrior to defend the Iraq Invasion, respectively, but not to pen decision. Forget Antonin Scalia and the 9th Circus Court of California, the penis pump Judge. Oh they have no Duende (mythology). Rene Saguisag is also the counsel of Joseph Estrada, and when he met his fate on Nov. 8, all the top officers flooded the internet with news like paparazzis. Alfredo Benipayo who caused my 7 years suspension, might not be the cause of the University of Santo Tomas curses (read the news on the 2007 UST trauma), and when he was operated angioplasty on Feb. 21, 2001 as I predicted in writing filed with the Court, in disbarment cases I filed against him, etc., and when he was nominated 7 times and failed, you would not say that the healing dwarves made it, but his 2006 resignation is not a farce, it is utter pain and ended his career. Is it not one of the 5 pillars. Well, I debate this way, as mere follower of law, since I am handicapped here to debate and discuss on the 5 pillars, pardon me if my mind cannot yet as of this time comprehend these basic Wiki laws, except if you give me TIME. But since we editors or users want to expand and create a good and neutral encyclopedia, let us not be scared of the gray areas or finer points on the deletion of the article. Lest I be misconstrued, I boast not and I do not claim to be endowed with the power to annihilate in broad daylight as I wrote, and my dire predictions happened with impeccability. All I say is that in good faith, I made this article and I debate and discuss that it is sufficient in form and substance to remain here for eternity. Submitted for decision. Amen. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. TheCoffee (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I will add that much of this also smacks of Original Research. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  17:30, 30 January 2008 (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.