Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleck Bovick

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 speedy keep. nom {{Withdraw}}n (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleck Bovick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non-notable "actress" best known for Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition. Quis separabit? 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly upon review and updating the article (myself). Quis separabit? 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the articles and realized I was wrong and changed my vote to keep because it seems the right think to do in case anyone is curious. I didn't do it because I was afraid "to lose" an AFD. Since the voting is well underway, I believe it is too late to withdrawn the nom. I have "lost" (as some put it) other AFDs by SNOW and I didn't change my votes nor have have I changed my votes on other recent AFD nominations I made which were a source of controversy in some circles. Quis separabit? 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? You do understand that WP:BLP is pretty strict, right?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Sources attest to notability.--Jondel (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV show or simply delete as I simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No actually. She is not "best known for Pinoy Big Brother". If you didn't notice, it's a CELEBRITY edition. She was a well-known sexy star long before reality TV was even a thing. She's had multiple significant roles in notable films and TV shows, including winning a FAMAS Best Actress award for her first film Tampisaw in 2002 (to put that in context, the FAMAS Awards are the Philippine equivalent to the Oscars of the US). It caused a huge controversy back then, as people thought that another nominee deserved it more. But that's beside the point and only actually serves to reinforce her notability. She's well-known enough that Philippine senators can joke about her. She's been the subject of widespread significant coverage in secondary sources (aside from those already linked, here's another one, for example), award-winning, and played significant roles in multiple notable films/TV shows. WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This is an easy keep. And don't rely on the results in Google News search for Philippine sources (which shows merely 9 results for me). They've only started archiving it from very recently. You can find more sources in a regular Google web search. Notice as well that none of the links I gave is even related to the Big Brother show. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Sexy star" is a Philippine English colloquialism referring to actors/actresses primarily noted for being sexually attractive. The closest equivalent American English term is "sex symbol".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't know why this text, copied from a reliable source -- philstar-- was removed. Any ideas?? Quis separabit? 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary. Or you could ask User:Ponyo who protected it afterwards. I think in the belief that you were a socking vandal. That should give you a hint. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected because it is a target for socks, of the last 13 editors (not including my sock reversions) on that article five of them are confirmed block sock accounts. Clearly [email protected] is not a socking vandal or they would have been blocked as well. The protection of the article was unrelated to any edits they made.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.