Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico de la Plana

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federico de la Plana[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. The only reference is trivial and a Google search gives no other results. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question why do not constitutional convention delegates meet NPOL as do members of legislatures. I also question weather google searches are a good way to judge references. I think some actual physical library searches in the Philippines are in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, the reason we accept legislators as automatically notable is because reliable source coverage of them is certain to exist. Even if the article is inadequately sourced as written, we know for a fact that the article can be repaired because media coverage will always exist somewhere. But we can't hand the same automatic presumption of notability to constitutional convention delegates, because there's not a sufficient guarantee that the depth of coverage needed to get them over WP:GNG will exist anywhere — it might, certainly, but it also might not. So they can't be a class of topic where we keep the article regardless of its current state of sourcing — they're a class of topic where tracking down sufficient sources upfront has to come first, as a basic precondition of the article even being allowed to exist at all. But the only source present here is a glancing namecheck of his existence, in the context of handing somebody an envelope, and that's not enough by itself. As well, the article says he was a mayor, but fails to say what town or city he was the mayor of — but mayors don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing either, but rather their includability is at least partially dependent on the size of the town or city (although ultimately their sourceability more than anything else). So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody puts in enough work to show that he's more sourceable than this, but nothing here entitles him to a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable evidence of notability, as spelled out clearly immediately above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:58, 3 September 2017 (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.