Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Baraan IV

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. David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Francis Baraan IV

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Francis Baraan IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While this mainspace article is tagged for speedy deletion I've taken the opportunity to nominate it for deletion instead, together with the draft about him which I've been reviewing at Draft:Francis Baraan IV, bearing in mind that notability isn't grounds for deletion in draft space. Having reviewed the sources he doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. He is a blogger who is trying to make a name for himself. The author is persistent. Can we consider the mainspace and draftspace articles as a whole and conclude that the topic is not notable? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I have been watching the development of this draft with interest and despite reading all the sources cannot see where notability is supposed to lie. He appears to have inherited family wealth and is happy to advertise it. But being a manager of a posh beach-house doesn't make you notable, nor does parading round with a number of attractive women although that looks to be in particularly poor taste but again not notable. For the rest he appears to be a blogger who likes to pick poorly argued fights with the current left-wing prime minister but without demonstrating that anybody takes it very seriously. Being a blogger and being on twitter and being retweeted does not make for notability. Nothing else here speaks to notability. If it isn't speedy deletion worth, it must be pretty close.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Contesting Deletion

Mr. Baraan is not just a blogger. He is a also a journalist and has a column on The Philippine Business and News called Brutally Frank.

MediaManager1 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Baraan has been interviewed multiple times by former DZRH correspondent Edmar Estabillo, a radio anchor for Mabuhay Radio Japan-Worldwide, which live streams on Facebook and aired across the globe. There are hours of recorded interviews with him talking about Philippine politics, press freedom, and free speech. He has contributed to the dialogue of Philippine politics and is considered one of the most prominent Opposition critics in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Interviews do not help to establish any notabil;ity. Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Contextually,they should. One does not interview someone multiple times if the interviewee isn't some kind of an authority. And if you listen to the interviews, they clearly are equivalent to in-depth profile of someone, especially if the interviewer is a peer—also a journalist. The fact that Baraan is asked for his opinions by his peers, is, essentially, a testament to his authority on certain topics. One of the criteria of Wikipedia notability is an impactful contribution to a certain field. In the Philippines, there are a handful of political pundits and influencers, who are anti-Duterte that get to be asked for speakerships, interviews, and written about. There are already multiple, independent news sources that have talked about Baraan in great detail. They may not be The New York Times, but they do have editorial oversight, and are independent and unrelated to Baraan. Just because a reference isn't indexed on Google News, doesn't mean it isn't verifiable, credible, and independent.

As for bloggers talking about Baraan, you have to realize that those bloggers are also newsmakers and independent journalists. They add context to Baraan's perceived authority. I could inline citations that would support all the material in the Article. Would that suffice?

Also, the article is a stub. It is not in any way, shape, or form pretending to be a full-fledged biographical, encyclopedic account of Baraan.

Would the article pass as a part of a list, say Filipino human rights activists? Would it pass as a stub for a journalist in Wikipedia Tagalog? I believe it would.

Like I said, I believe in the wisdom behind the pedantry and the rules. But contextually, and sources-wise, the article could pass as a biographical stub, and expansion of it would be most welcome.

I leave it to you, Editors, to decide on the fate of the Article. But it would be imprudent to delete an article which shows promise, and has somehow satisfied the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

Arbitrarily nominating for deletion, or deleting altogether an article, is the prerogative of Editors. But I have seen Articles where there sources I used were accepted and unquestioned.

MediaManager1 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Typical SPI creation. If it is not sock, then may be hiring people to recreate again. Read also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professor Henyo/Archive. Matthew hk (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made it abundantly clear that I am a paid contributor, not some sockpuppet. Read my explanation on my talk page regarding this accusation on Draft:Francis Baraan IV. I have disclosed everything there is to disclose. And I do not know why you are bringing up an account I have nothing to do with. The talk pages for the draft of this topic address your concerns, and I have nothing to do with Henyo.

MediaManager1 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Interviews are primary sources and as such do not establish notability, as Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about themselves, but in what others unconnected with them say about them. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Either way, my third-party and secondary sources all support each other to demonstrate notability of my topic as an activist. And I would like to remind everyone that this is a biographical stub, not a full-blown encyclopedic account of Baraan's life. I have at least 3 independent, third-party sources with editorial oversight, and the others are secondary sources to show the perceived importance and notability of Baraan among the pro-Duterte crowd, because he is a prominent Opposition activist. Also, notability can also be established via cult following. Baraan has over 130K followers across social platforms, and the fact that he is verified on most of them denotes public interest, because he is a public figure. The in-depth profiles about him speak to his notability, too. Also, more materials and sources are forthcoming. MediaManager1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: Per Nom. We are dealing with WP:PAID, that is a policy with legal considerations, it is also a Wikimedia mandate. What I see is an apparent WP:SPA that was involved with a draft, then forgot the account password (it could happen), created a new account to continue work on a draft, "redrafted", then redrafted again, and this apparently resulted in an article in main space, no longer a draft, yet still under consideration there. conflict of interest, specifically financial conflict of interest states: If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is: you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;. Assuming volumes of good faith this would mandate, at the very least, that this article be deleted by procedure, and return to the draft for consideration of creation. However, I agree with the Nom because it has been demonstrated the author has a concrete reason to argue for keeping, that in itself cast doubts on possible neutrality, the draft and article advance advertising/promotion, that was a reason for deletion two years ago, and because the world at large (reliable sources) is the determining factor for inclusion on Wikipedia and not financial considerations. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paid editor bypassed the WP:AFC system and created in mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see why Wikipedia would want people to disclose if users are paid contributors, and then use it against them. It boggles the mind. Whether or not someone is paid to contribute, what should matter is the content created and the notability of the topic. Does this mean I would always get questioned whenever I wish to create an article about a topic from which I would not financially benefit? Who would create the article I just wrote and move it into mainspace? Do I have to ask someone to create it for me? Are there any volunteers? How does one gp about this problem of technicality?

As to reliable sources argument, I have demonstrated notability of the subject via reliable sources. My sources and material demonstrate notability not because I advocate for its retention in mainspace, but because it is a fact proven by the references I used.

Also, I would like to contest the {{unreliable sources}} tag on my Conan Daily references. Conan Daily is a digital news site with editorial oversight. Conan Altatis is THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF. He has a team of writers and editors, which is included in the ABOUT section.

HERE:

The Team

Editor-in-Chief: Conan Altatis

Associate Editors: Erika Diaz Mendoza Lao, Jillianina Estevez

Sports Editor: Conan Altatis

Entertainment Editor: Carlo Camilo Valenzona

Business and Technology Editor: Marky O’Brien

Lifestyle and Society Editor: Erica Diaz Mendoza Lao

Staff Writers: Jiro Honda, Orion Estevez, Rafi Gandolfi

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

REGARDING BYPASSED AUTHORITY

I didn't know that it was frowned upon, or a violation, for paid contributors to bypass directly into mainspace. I honestly thought that since I am already autoconfirmed and could move a draft into Article space, I could write articles and be proofread and edited by autopatrollers here. Had I known that, I wouldn't have done it. Deleting my article is a bit much. I ask for leniency since I am a rookie. And zi I am not using other accounts or soliciting others to advocate for the retention of my Article. Which is why I am here arguing my case and objecting as best I could. If I were familiar with all the guidelines I could cite by memory with the correct tags, I would.

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm afraid I am at a disadvantage since you all can correctly cite the correct guidelines using the appropriate tag; I can't. So, it would help if you could please give a neophyte user like me a little break. A little leniency would be most appreciated. I did not mean to bypass anybody's authority, and I certainly did not know that disclosing my status as a paid contributor would be used against me and my credibility and neutrality. I have exercised the utmost prudence with regard to the way I wrote the Article, cognizant of the fact that impartiality and neutrality are the tone with which all encyclopedic materials should be written.

So, I implore you to take into account that I am new here, and is still navigating my way around all the rules & pedantry. Thank you.

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)— MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment sometimes, and I suspect that this is one of them, there is a time to back-off, as continuing to argue may create an adverse reaction. For what appears to be an autobiography, IMHO that point passed some two comments ago.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from an article about him. Most likely a WP:ROTM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I have no concerns that the creating editor is paid. They have made the declaration. My concerns are that the draft has always appeared to be a thinly disguised advert and that the article is WP:ADMASQ as well. The photos decorating each are imperfectly sourced and permissioned on Commons. That is not entirely relevant and yet shows a disregard for the proprieties of this endeavour. Fiddle Faddle 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As promised, more references and sources are forthcoming. According to WP:GNG, as long as there is at least one reference supporting claim of notability and significance, article should not be deleted. And just because you couldn't Google anything about Francis Baraan IV, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Try iterations of his name, Frank Baraan or Frank Baraan IV. Also, more sources are forthcoming.

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

* Keep (struck as duplicate vote!)

As for the argument that Baraan is not notable:

"Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article:

WP:NEXIST

WP:NPOSSIBLE

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."

Also, I have already used independent, verifiable sources that talk about my topic in great detail. One doesn't even need to extra research, because some of the references I used are in-depth profiles on Baraan.

MediaManager1 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

*Keep

I would like to keep the article, and ask Curb Safe Charmer to withdraw her deletion nomination. I have made many improvements to the Article already. Her reason of my topic not meeting notability guidelines have already been debunked with reliable sources. And like I said, more sources are forthcoming. And my article is a stub for a journalist and activist. I have already presented multiple verifiable, independent, quality sources.

MediaManager1 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

• Delete this paid-for piece of promotion. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, you havent read or checked the sources. And being a paid contributor has no relevance to the notability of my article, or the verifiability of my sources.

MediaManager1 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think my topic is too broad. I am thinking of nominating my own article for disambiguation. Possibly, Francis Baraan IV (Filipino Activist-Journalist)? Thoughts? MediaManager1 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We only disambiguate biographical articles if there are two or more article subjects with the same name. Who is the other Francis Baraan IV? - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

REASONS TO KEEP ARTICLE

The problem with these tags and templates is that new editors and users get overwhelmed by a new pnew popping being placed by admins. I am not even sure how that template would affect my Article given that it has been nominated for deletion under WP:GNG. And despite the good faith edits and the improvements I have been making to it, I have yet to see one vote of confidence from admins, who are far more experienced and prolific here. It is now the 6th day since my Article was nominated for deletion. And I would like to know the best solution to my Article without it being deleted. I have satisfied notability guidelines via WP:GNG as a journalist-activist/opinion maker for a stub: 1. Cult following 2. Public figure 3. In-depth, high quality sources, primary, secondary, and third-party 4. All my sources are used by already established, old articles here: Conandaily.com; kami.com.ph; abogado.com.ph; Author Link to thehilbiznews.com etc. 5. My subject's in-depth profiles at Squeeze.ph are reliable, verifiable, quality references. 6. Baraan has multiple published body of work at a reliable online news publication as a columnist and pundit, which means he is an expert at his field (another notability guideline for a journalist/creative professional/author/opinion maker) 7. My subject is widely quoted by his peers and publications and bloggers (which, contextually, signified authority in his niche: politics and activism and social media activism) 8. The Squeeze PH articles alone are enough to create an entire article about Baraan's body of work as an activist, journalist, and social media personality. 9. I have provided every material with an inline citation/good reference. 10. And my article could either be a stub for a journalist-activist, or an encyclopedic article on Francis Baraan IV (Journalist & Activist). 11. I have also provided links to his interviews by reputable journalists, videos created by other journalists and bloggers. 12. More sources are forthcoming. Hence, {{Afd} tag citing WP:GNG is now inappropriate.

MediaManager1 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OBJECTING TO THE HEAVY FIRST PARAGRAPH EDITS MADE BY THE NOMINATOR OF MY ARTICLE FOR DELETION.

I would like to request that the following be included in the first paragraph:

Francis Baraan...

is a Filipino activist, journalist, blogger, social media personality, and hotelier (or beachfront resort manager and owner).

Reference: http://squeeze.ph/8-fun-things-about-francis-baraan-iv/ No. 8 describes Baraan as a hotelier, not a house guest manager. In his own news blog, Baraan also says he is the General Manager of Sirom Beach Hous. So, where did "house guest manager" come from? That is tantamount to editorializing, instead of directly quoting what has been explicitly written in the sources.

I may be a paid editor, but I created the article, and I would like to set an accurate, succinct tone based on the sources used.

DESCRIBING BARAAN IN WORDS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCE USED IS AN EGREGIOUS, BAD FAITH EDIT. MediaManager1 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs)

.Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts and from sources, not based on something entirely and visibly inaccurate and misleading.

I AM NOT REVERTING to my edits. I AM IMPROVING THE ARTICLE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE EDITED, because I created the Article.

Paid editors still have the right to IMPROVE their article, which was nomimated for deletion discussion due to lack of WP:GNG. How am I to prove notability, when the materials and descriptions that ACTUALLY make my topic notable, are being summarily edited with inaccuracies, grammatical errors, and misleading descriptions by THE VERY person, who nominated my article for deletion review?

Anyone is welcome to edit as long as the edits are not diametrically opposed to the improvements I am making for the Article. If the nominator is that INVOLVED, the nominator should withdraw nomination or close the deletion review discussion, and KEEP my article as a stub.

It is frustrating to work hard on something only to be accused of engaging in edit wars with Administrators, who have the POWER TO BLOCK ME from editing my own article, or deleting my Article altogether.

I don't have the upper hand here. You, administrators, have. And all I am asking is for is fairness. Please try to see things from my perspective.

Thank you. MediaManager1 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaManager1 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is NOT MY BLOG. I am now confusing MY ARTICLE with Baraan's blog as MY BLOG, too, because of my frustration over the edits to my first paragraph. But I am learning the hard way that NO ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA is MINE — it is EVERYBODY'S.

MediaManager1 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Blatantly promotional, blatantly non-notable. If recreated it needs to be speedied and SALTED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

*Strong Keep Article is improving. Subject is a social media personality and a columnist, therefore, he is a public figure and key thoought leader whose political opinions are widely quoted, sought, and shared and consumed by the public. I recommend keeping it as a stub, or edit article until it satisfies each administrator's idiosyncratic interpretation of notable.

120.29.66.62 (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC) :Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. Struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that 120.29.66.62 removed the AfD banner on the article (replaced by another editor), obviously in error considering that this might close the discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The so-called improvements according to 120.29.66.62 are just cosmetic improvements — for one wording fixes in the lead but not providing additional secondary sources: sources that are independent of the subject. Barely heard him on either ABS-CBN or GMA. It seems that warning tag is right: the editors seem to be connected to him. Additionally, the file used — File:Filipino activist Francis Baraan IV car selfie.jpg, is to be deleted sooner as it seems an obvious copyright violation: copyright vests in the person who pressed the shutter, not the person who owns or maintains the photo. Ownership and copyright are two different things. Multiple issues mean this article doesn't warrant its standing in the mainspace. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Apart from notability issues, majority of the listed sources are unreliable. I can see only one reliable source. Since Francis Baraan IV is a living person, it must conform with the standards set at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It seems that this article promotes him, a notable violation on the said policy. Using blog-type sites as sources (exempli gratia: squeeze.ph, www.abogado.com.ph, www.getrealpundit.com) are also against the policy, as well as using self-published source that is connected to the subject - the The Philippine Business and News: https://thephilbiznews.com. 11:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep the article as stub. Editors have used reliable, third party sources. Philippine Star, Squeeze.PH, Conandaily.com, and kami.com.ph all have editorial oversight. PhilStar may be the biggest, but all are reliable, verifiable, and independent. They have an actual team of editors and journalists, not a blog by just one person. You all should help editors improve the article, not go around in circles with these endless deletion discussions. Because if we are to actually dissect WP:GNG guidelines for a stub, the Article and references have already established that. And how do you know that Baraan has not been quoted and featured on CNN Philippines, Rappler, GMA, ABS-CBN and Inquirer. He actually has. His tweets and opinions have been widely quoted by all of those news sites. In fact, the biggest journalists and news sites all follow him because he is an authority in Philippine politics and his opinions on politics are regarded as expert opinions.

The main editor probably did not think include those articles, because they were trivial mentions. But I checked, there are lots of local and international news publications quoting Baraan. You just don't know where to look. Administrators keep using the notability issue. But those "cosmetic" improvements support proof of notability. And those news sites all have detailed, in-depth profiles about him. WP:GNG was the notability issue used. And as a stub for a journalist and opinion maker, Wikipedia is very clear: If there is at least one reliable, verifiable, indepnendent source that talks about the topic in great detail and when reliable sources obviously forthcoming, keeping the article as a stub is the best solution. Also, Squeeze.ph and kami.com.ph have respected and notable columnists. Squeeze.ph has Neri Colmenares as one of theirn columnists, and they have a team of actual journalists and news team. They are reliable, third-party, independent news portals, and those are facts. It would behoove you to actually use more common sense. Pushing this narrative wherein almost all the references used are poor references is just plain irresponsible. A little due diligene would actually help.

Also, Samira Gutoc is another notable columnist for the Philippine Business and News,the news portal wherein Baraan maintains a column, too. So, obviously, Baraan meets notability guidelines as journalist, activist, and opinion maker, because his peers actually recognize him and are on equal footing as his notable counterparts, who have Articles here.

At this juncture, denying Baraan's notability to justify a deletion tag that was created before all the "cosmetic" improvements, is just bordering on absurd. Wikipedia has Articles with less sources than Baraan's article, and so many pages actually use almost all the references and sources used for this Article WITHOUT any reference templates and deletion tags at all.

So, I don't know why people keep on denying the obvious. This Article and most references support and prove notability of topic as stub for a living journalist, activist, and creative professional.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that in order for a source to be reliable, at least 2 paragraphs in any individual source/reference should talk about the topic lengthily such that no additional research is already required. So, please read all the references. Some even have more than 5 paragraphs about Baraan, and talk about and review his life, activism, work, businesses, advocacies, and opinions in encyclopedic detail.

Also, he has been invited by Sen.Risa Hontiveros to be a roundtable panelist last year on LGBT issues, and he even worked with Sen. Risa before on an LGBT advocacy bback in 2012. Even Sen. Leila de LLima wrote him a handwritten lletter praising Baraan's work.

If you read the sources, you would actually know that. Senators don't invite and praise non-notable people, they only do that for political influencers and key activists and thought leaders.

So, once again, just to drive home the point:

1.REFERENCES MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA. 2. TOPIC MEETS MINIMUM NOTABILITY GUIDELINES. 3. JUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT FIND MORE SOURCES DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST. 4.JUST BECAUSE SOURCES ARE NOT AS HUGE AS OTHER SOURCES, DOES NOT MEAN TTHEY ARE NOT AS GOOD AND RELIABLE. 5. COMMON SENSE. 6. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. 7. AS PER MEDIAMANAGER1, THIS IS JUST A STUB. 8. AND ARTICLE MEETS STUB WP:GNG FFOR JOURNALIST, ACTIVIST, OR OPINION MAKER.

Thank you. I say STRONG KEEP, and hoping an administrator would actually see some merits in my arguments in support of keeping the article. Have a wonderful day or night. Cheerio. SignedSealedForevered (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — SignedSealedForevered (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I looked at all 21 citations, and can summarise the lot as WP:PROMOtional tosh and gossip. None but none is an independent in-depth source about him. IMO the best one, for what it's worth, is Francis Baraan IV biography: 13 interesting facts about the Filipino human rights activist. Some people with quiet voices have WP articles (and many don't, but should; I've written two articles about people who would probably have said, "Who, me? Why?" which were featured in WP:DYK); having a loud voice does not justify an article, unless an independent party sees fit to write you up. WP:REFBOMBING; nothing WP:RS to support a WP:BLP; fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that every keep !vote to date is from an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaManager1, an investigation which has not yet closed, but has resulted in blocks. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmmmm.. I can almost hear, waaay off in the distance, the vocalisations of a family of dabbling and diving waterbirds. Narky Blert (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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.