Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Castillo

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 no consensus. W.marsh 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Castillo[edit]

Note: Was listed and tagged for AfD by 203.177.176.137 (talk · contribs), but the debate wasn't created. A contested prod with the reason "Lack of notability." I have no opinion on the matter. Phony Saint 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject was mayor of Bacoor, Cavite for almost 10 years, and he is involved in a major scandal, as discussed in this source. --Evb-wiki 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evb..--The Joke النكتة‎ 06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree which is why I removed the prod only to have the prod reinstated because being an elected official isn't notable, according to the guy that removed/reinstated it. HAH!Postcard Cathy

According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people, the anon is correct about this person not falling under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Perhaps you should be more civil than this and come up with a reason based in policies and guidelines. Phony Saint 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to a Wikiproject on the Philippines. It's vanishingly unlikely that the mayor of a city of over 300,000 people (and one involved in a major scandal at that) doesn't have some good references out there, but again expecting to find these sources online is remote. A mayor of a city that size in North America would likely have books written about him. --Charlene 10:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just placed a message on the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines talk page to this effect. --Charlene 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week Keep (but would have voted for a delete)~~ Okay, point taken, this mayor was indeed involved in a news item (where he locked up the police station). But my objection would be, it wasn't that big either. Because of the turbulent nature of Philippine elections, I'm sure that he wasn't the only mayor involved in something like this (I mean, c'mon, we get to hear these kind of news everyday during the peak of the campaign period), and other than this only incident when he made it to the news because of that incident, he didn't figure out in other news or notable incidents, and never did his name appear since then. Take note that prior to the padlocking incident, this article didn't even had sources; most of the content were added after this incident, and then only did other edits weakly tried to assert his notability (or notoriety, if you're on the other side of the fence). I would strongly endorse a keep if this mayor was someone like, say, Alfredo Lim or Jejomar Binay, but then I have my doubts. So I'm voting for a weak keep (but might later change my vote to a delete); otherwise, about 1,539 other mayors would demand that they also have their own WP articles, even though most of them will most likely never meet the criteria for notability---and this means 1,540 new articles every three years, as well as around 1,540 vice mayors and approximately 10,000 municipal councilors (unless the others are also running for re-election). --- Tito Pao 02:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going for it, for the above-named reasons. --- Tito Pao 00:46, 5 June 2007 (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.