Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlou Arizala

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marlou Arizala[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)

As per WP:NOTNEWS, the subject has no sufficient claim to notability. Recently receiving coverage in the national mainstream showbiz media due to a rape allegation.

I'm not sure if the subject is notable enough to have an article if his claim to notability is a sensational plastic surgery operation and antics/notoriety against several acting celebrities. His stint with Hasht5, and Hasht5 itself don't satisfy WP:NMUSIC Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be some local interest about the subject as sources seem to check out, though I don't think it's enough to establish global notability/significance. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To me, this is an easy one. There is ndependent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (including the country's newspaper of record) and it is not all focused on one event. GNG doesn't require global significance, and this coverage is clearly more than local. Most of the coverage I see is from 2017 to 2019 rather than the 2020 allegations (though certainly we should monitor the mentions of such allegations for WP:BLP compliance). Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is not a good example to the younger generation. He should not be recognized at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:1B2:4900:ECDF:32DE:BC50:7723 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Κeep since subject easily meets the criteria for notability on account of the numerous sources. -The Gnome (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2020 (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.