Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Pablo (2nd nomination)

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 speedy delete. Housekeeping - article has been speedy deleted by TomStar81 following GPL93's tag. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Pablo[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)

No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 The subject was deemed not notable in the previous discussion; this new article has no sources at all, and no content apart from an infobox. I can find nothing online to suggest that the question of notability has changed since the last deletion - just social media profiles and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable child actress. This runs afould of BLP sourcing issues. Which we should be very vigilant of when the subject is a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The creator initially draftified it, but created an article without "finalizing" it. It should remain as draft until there are enough sources to become a standalone article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, actually, the author has already moved it back into mainspace after someone else draftified it (due to the lack of sources and content), without adding any sources whatsoever. Draftification would allow them to do the same thing again and we'll have to have this discussion all over. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, then it's best that the author (and its IP address) should be blocked indefinitely for repeatedly removing the AfD template from the page. My vote still stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, I don't quite follow this chain of reasoning I'm afraid. Removing the AfD template isn't a good look, and the author will be blocked if they persist with it; my point is that last time the article was draftified, it was simply moved back into article space by the original author, with none of the issues addressed. We don't host unsourced biographies of living people - especially not minors - not in draft space, user space or anywhere else. Show me a single independent, reliable, secondary source that could be used to support notability and I'd be happy to drop this - but in the absence of such a source, there is no credible argument for retaining a draft. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, alright then. It's given that she's currently one of the leading ladies in an afternoon hit series. Here are among the sources I found: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Those sources are indeed reliable (I should know). ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, the two GMA Network links are affiliated sources - they're advertising an upcoming star on their own network. PEP.ph is a celebrity gossip mag, speculating on the love life of a fourteen-year-old girl. The Journal.com.ph is a short interview (so primary), and it's with five people - Pablo gets a single sentence in that - a passing mention. None of these come close to establishing notability, or even supporting any content that we could add to a BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, OK. I'll disregard the PEP.ph. But, there seems to be a lot of coverage when I search her name. The links from GMA Network and Journal.com.ph talk about her. Therefore, they are really notable enough for the subject to be kept. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me any further, don't bother responding. I already explained enough as I'm not looking for an argument. So, I won't reply anymore. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, are you familiar with the requirement for sources to be independent? This is the opening sentence of the GMA Network piece: Sofia Pablo is one of GMA Network's most promising tween actresses. They are advertising their own content and stable of talent - it conveys no notability whatsoever. The journal.com.ph source is the briefest of passing mentions in an puffy interview - it doesn't even approach significant coverage. Out of all the hits you are getting on Google, can you point to a single independent, secondary and reliable source that gives the subject significant depth of coverage? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your second comment there - you are under no obligation to respond, I'm happy to leave this here. Presumably you know that this isn't a vote, in the normal sense of the word; the closer of the discussion will accord your !vote the weight it deserves based on the strength of its argument with regard to policy. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of any notability whatsoever, and has no sources.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 I've tagged it but the article creator keeps removing it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 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.