Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Baraan IV: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:01, 23 August 2020

Francis Baraan IV

[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)

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paid editor bypassed the WP:AFC system and created in mainspace. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::::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. [[User:MediaManager1|MediaManager1]] ([[User talk:MediaManager1|talk]]) 09:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''': Per Nom. We are dealing with [[WP:PAID]], that is a [[Wikipedia:List of policies#Legal|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.  [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], specifically  [[WP:FCOI|financial conflict of interest]] states: {{tq|If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is:}} {{tq|you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;}}. [[WP:ASSUME|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 [[WP:neutrality|neutrality]], the draft and article advance advertising/promotion, that was a reason for deletion two years ago, and because the world at large ([[WP:RS|reliable sources]]) is the determining factor for inclusion on Wikipedia and not financial considerations. --  [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per nom. Paid editor bypassed the [[WP:AFC]] system and created in mainspace. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 15:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)