Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Rojas (weathercaster)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rojas (weathercaster)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sources provided demonstrate only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Of the four sources cited, two are puff-piece announcements based on interviews, one (ABS-CBN) is not independent of the subject, and one is about non-notable tweets by others about the subject. The notability guidelines WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:JOURNALIST may apply to broadcast news personalities. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded another source that talks about Rojas: [1]. Sorry the the source talk's about his career about a weathercaster at TV Patrol. That's all I can found for now. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have founded sources from LIONHEARTV.net about Rojas: [2] [3]. They are repeated sources mentioned here. We may just pick one to add it to the article if its okay. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't significant coverage, that's a brief promotional blurb. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. I also think that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Compare his career in contrast with the weather presenters that he replaced such as Kim Atienza and Ernie Baron. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the given sources is appropriate to establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. Sources in the article, including the one presented by SeanJ, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still convinced that it meets BIO with additional sources by SeanJ below. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and Lenticel. A BLP is more than a resume and should be full and balanced. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: So what do you call the first two sources mentioned at the article? And do you believe what SBKSPP said? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If SBKSPP's vote is right, why you don't guys considered it that it pass WP:BIO? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Instead of arguing that a subject is notable, use some of the sources to perform a HEY. This would be better than ignoring that at present, as written, the article is not a biography of a living person but a glorified dictionary entry, which is why I included WP:PSEUDO and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Maybe, as an ATD you would care to opt for draftify -- Otr500 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: Well as you you look at the sources mentioned here, it is like a WP:HEY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I have found another sources and I don't know which Wikipedia policies do they pass, if they pass some but failed on some like what is mentioned above, vote keep, its just a waste of time for me to find sources that can pass just one Wikipedia policy, and I think thats WP:BIO: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Do not waste my time finding more sources that is even just pass WP:BIO other than WP:JOURNALIST, etc. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say is that RESEARCH PROPERLY!, there may be many sources about Rojas that can pass WP:BIO. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources I mentioned above is WP:HEY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SeanJ 2007: Hey (heh) there! just for the record, WP:HEY is not simply finding more sources – it requires substantial improvement to the article itself, using those new sources. If you can fashion a more substantive article with this source, then WP:HEY might apply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Theleekycauldron: Okay, I am waiting for the answers of others if some of the sources I mentioned above can fit to the article. If none, I think there is a chance it may be deleted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round to discuss the additional sources indicated above. To SeanJ 2007, please be civil to the editors in this discussion. Whether they agree or disagree with you, respect their views instead of wasting your time arguing with them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine/trivial coverage, nothing notable that I see. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notability and somewhat per WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in context of what-seems-to-be a routine hiring of a weather-related show, which is not sufficient basis for inclusion. In addition, coverage is not significant because an article that contains more than his name, previous job, new job, and education is not possible with the linked articles. I'm willing to reconsider if I can be disproved by addition of material to the article. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. Coverage doesn't meet the criteria of standards for WP:NBIO (WP:JOURNALIST) and WP:PSEUDO with a possible include WP:ROTM, WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of sources being thrown at us here but none are quite cutting the mustard. Could be notable in future but they're not quite there yet. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2022 (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.