Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raikko Mateo

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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raikko Mateo[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or elsewhere. It is sourced only to Facebook, together with failed attempts to link to Twitter, Instagram, and an unidentified "FanPage". (A deletion proposal by WP:PROD was removed without explanation by a single-purpose account with a self-declared conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 15:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly. I really do not enjoy poorly sourced articles. I have removed the offending (unreliable) sources (Facebook, etc.) and added four citations in the awards section. Reliable sources about Raikko Mateo are not that hard to find, but I will let someone else continue to populate the article with appropriate citations. On the basis of my searches he seems to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. I note that Wikipedia has yet to recognize with articles the Yahoo! Celebrity Awards of the Philippines and the Gawad PASADO Awards. --Bejnar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo, and the others merely include his name in a list. You say "Reliable sources about Raikko Mateo are not that hard to find", but you have not actually provided any source (reliable or otherwise) that does more than list his name, nor have I managed to find any. We don't keep articles on the grounds that someone says that there are reliable sources but doesn't say where, as that means that the sources are not verifiable. It is also very unclear to me that the awards claimed are significant enough to indicate notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't interested in spending a lot of time with this once I did an initial search and found lots of articles, so i just documented the awards. The previous citations were all junk (as mentioned above). I think if you look, you'll find that all of the four citations that I added do mention Raikko Mateo and the specific award. I was verifying the awards, to make sure that he received them and that they were not pure fluff. (The Yahoo award is pretty fluffy.) Let me know which source you had trouble with. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by asking me which source I "had trouble with". I have already explained why I don't think the sources establish notability. Nor do you state that they do: you merely state that they verify that he received the awards listed, which is far from being the same as establishing notability. We don't keep articles just because somebody says they have "found lots of articles": we need to know what the articles are, so that we can check whether they show notability by Wikipedia standards or not. I had a look, and eight of the first ten Google hits for "Raikko Mateo" were the Wikipedia article, a YouTube video, Facebook, Twitter, Wikia, a credit list on IMDb, a page on Instagram which describes itself as belonging to the "Official Supporters Account Of Raikko Mateo", and a forum. Another one is a news item on the "Phillipine entertainment portal". The Phillipine entertainment portal looks to me pretty indiscriminate in its reporting; it seems to aim to be as inclusive as possible of anything that might appeal to fans of almost any Filipino entertainers. That leaves one Yahoo news report which essentially consists of a write-up of what the "AdProm Head" of Dreamscape said about how Raikko Mateo came to be chosen for a part. The same text appears, word for word, on a page at www.highbeam.com, and it seems to be no more than a write-up of a press release. I had a quicker glance at the next 20 Google hits, and although there was more coverage of him, it seemed at a quick look to be mostly unreliable sources, fan pages, trivial coverage, etc. It may be that there is suitable coverage to show notability according to Wikipedia's standards, but I have yet to see it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: When I asked what source you had trouble with, I was referring to your statement sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo,. All of the cited sources mention Raikko Mateo. Which one did you have trouble with? --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as searching goes I'd try the "news" button above in the Afd header. For example "Confluence of mixed emotions" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer 24 March 2014 in a news story about the end of the "Honesto" series, four paragraphs are devoted to Mateo. See also "Raikko Mateo’s eyes land him lead role on ‘Honesto’" a Yahoo News article of 28 October 2013, and the article "Raiko, 5" in the printed entertainment magazine TFC Tells All, volume 2, issue 1, page 19. As far as notability goes Mateo has had significant roles in multiple television shows, namely a starring role in the #1 show Honesto and the highly rated My Guardian Angel, which meets WP:NACTOR criteria #1. The awards help indicate that the roles were significant. As I said above, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that he passes the standard notability tests, even though he is now only six years old. One might also look at his fan base the existence of which is supported by the Yahoo award, and by such comments in secondary sources as The fan base of the Filipino teleserye has expanded not just from its predominantly loyal followers (housewives and senior citizens) to young people now cheering the “Honesto” of Raikko Mateo. "The perks and lures of teleserye" in the Philippine Star newspaper. --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: First of all, thank you for the additional work you have evidently put in. I confess I am not sure now what I had in mind when I wrote "Of the sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo". The only thing I can think of is that I had in mind the one which is merely a note about the title of an award, with a link to the Wikipedia article Tagalog language. Most probably I just clicked on all the links given in the ref list, and searched for Raikko Mateo's name in each page that came up; since his name does not appear in that Wikipedia article, the search would come up negative. In any case, that does not affect the point I was trying to make, which was that none of the references does more than include his name in a list.

OK, now let's consider the links you give in your latest message. The first page you link to, at inquirer.net, is about "Honesto". Amongst other matters, it does mention Raikko Mateo at some length, but mainly as criticism of the writing for his part, and the coverage of Raikko Mate, as opposed to coverage of how the people who created the series handled the part played by Raikko Mate, amounts to no more than a couple of sentences or so. The second page you link to is the Yahoo report I have already discussed, and the comments I made above still stand. (One more point which I didn't think of mentioning before is that the article includes the text [caption id="attachment_34375" align="alignright" width="194"]Raikko Mateo, Honesto, Manila Bulletin Raikko Mateo[/caption], which is a pretty sure sign that it was just copied and pasted from somewhere, without even proof-reading it. That is consistent with my impression that it is copied from a press release.) The third page you link to at first appeared to be merely a page showing front covers of issues of a magazine, and it took me some time before I figured out how to find the article you refer to. When I did manage to see it, I saw that is indeed an article about Raikko Mateo, and far better evidence of notability than anything I had seen until then. However, it is fairly trivial coverage in just one magazine article, and I would want to see much more before I accepted that it was evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Then we come to your reference to WP:NACTOR. What does "multiple" mean? To me it suggests more than two, but it is undefined in the guideline, so there is room for disagreement. The guideline also says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so even if we accept two as being "multiple", that does not close the issue. Finally, we have your comments about his "fan base", supported by a link to a page at www.philstar.com. That page makes one passing mention of Raikko Mateo, and as far as I know "has a lot of fans" does not appear anywhere in any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

You have certainly now provided much better evidence of notability than was available when I wrote my earlier comment, and I thank you for the work you have put in. However, the way I see it, if we ignore sources which are of no use for establishing notability under the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines, we are left with (1) rather trivial fan type coverage in one magazine, and (2) significant role in 2 productions, which could be regarded as "multiple". I regard that as at best marginal evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, whereas before I would have said no evidence. However, I suggest leaving the discussion open for a while, to see if anyone else expresses an opinion as to whether that is enough evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2015 (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.