Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio Ejercito

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. At this point, the article fails WP:GNG, and there is no specialized criteria which applies. The argument about the Tagalog sources is important, and I would have no prejudice if the article is recreated based on multiple reliable sources, be it Tagalog, English, or Aleut, but as far as these sources have not been identified, the article has to be deleted. And if I had to close an article on the White House servant with the same level of sourcing, I would delete it as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Ejercito[edit]

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

No assertion of independent notability; only claim of importance is as father of notable children. Fails WP:BIO. GILO A&E⇑ 01:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find enough independent reliable sources. I found a Google Books search, and another one which turned up minimal coverage. The article is non-notable, and does fail WP:BIO. He is a non-notable government official with notable children. ~~JHUbal27 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator makes no mention of Tagalog sources, the probable main source. In any case passes WP:GNG by references in bios of various children and grandchildren. Notability evidently is inherited with American presidents, we have articles on Whitehouse servants, let alone presidents' fathers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that most Philippine media, especially online, is in English. If there's a lack of sources in English, then it's already an indication of lack of notability. While we do have articles for parents of American presidents, that's because they themselves have been the subject of reliable coverage. Sure for being the parents of presidents, but still coverage about them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing going against Mr. Ejercito is that his son became president almost 20 years after he died. Naturally, that means there would be significantly less sources that'll talk about him since he's dead, and there's little to talk about dead people's influences on the living when you compare to those who are alive. This is different from his widow, Mary Ejercito, who was alive on Estrada's entire term, and she was the reason the prosecutors went "easy" on him; she also benefits since she died at the time where news websites don't delete old pages so there's some sources that can be used. –H T D 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is mentioned in multiple sources. The deletion arguments just add to presentism in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. The ref's provided in the article only provided biographical snippets rather on what he did as a person.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes neither WP:BIO nor WP:GNG because none of the coverage cited is significant within the scope of those guidelines. —Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2013 (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.