Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Perez (blogger)
- AJ Perez (blogger) (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)
I am unconvinced of the notability of this blogger; he seems to have published an article about a very minor celebrity, but despite press coverage, that is not enough for notability. WP is NOT A TABLOID. There's a limit to the triviality we cover, and nobody can become notable by publishing something not remotely worth our inclusion. The GNG, like everything here, is subject to common sense, but for what we include and what we exclude. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
AJ Perez (blogger)
Hello DGG! I am the one who created this article that you are now considering for deletion, may I appeal your decision to recommend this page for deletion because the subject is indeed notable and still gaining prominence in my country today.
In my research, the subject has 250,000 followers and half a million reads[1] and it maybe a minor celebrity by North American or European standards but it is already big by Philippine standards, see # 2 of WP:ENT. Further research shows that the subject has followers from outside the Philippines as well on a big number.
I agree with what you said that "WP is NOT A TABLOID. There's a limit to the triviality we cover, and nobody can become notable by publishing something not remotely worth our inclusion." But the subject has been covered by that country's biggest networks on the air and on the net. Citations are available on the article itself. How can it be considered as TABLOID material? Are we to say that the Philippines' (or any other countries') biggest networks are just "tabloid materials" in comparison to the networks found in the editor's home country?
I believe that we should not pass judgement on the integrity of the sources especially if we are not native to their land. That is very subjective. What is important is if the sources are published and verifiable and available. See,WP:NRVE
Also, the one you categorized as a "very minor celebrity" that the subject wrote about is Janine Tugonon and she is the Miss Universe 2012 first runner-up and was considered a Filipino heroine (until her recent bad press) who has her own wiki page therefore is cannot be considered as a "very minor celebrity." Considering her as a "very minor celebrity" is an encyclopedic bias against Filipinos.
But also, the subject gained prominence again when he wrote about the Filipino migrant worker abuses in the Philippines-Taiwan rift, which in no way is a very minor issue. Again, it was cited on the article.
And the subject won an award in a national scale. On our private discussion you mentioned to me that "...Sanchez has what seem to be major awards;" (that's why he has a wiki page). Well, so does my subject, and it was cited properly in 3 major sources as well.
The article, when I did it is guided by WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NRVE
Each editor may have differing opinions about the standards of WP:GNG, but to each editor his own, isn't it? And while there are still no standards yet available, then status quo should be observed. This article passes the WP:GNG, then it should stay until further "improvements" to the WP:GNG is implemented in the future.
Now. other editors might cite WP:BLP1E, but clearly, the subject passed the requirements because he gained attention (national) in three different instances:
- Event number 1 on the first viral about Tugonon
- Event number 2 on second viral post about Taiwan (totally different topic, one month apart)
- Event number 3 was on winning the Globe Tatt awards for Davao (two months later from instance #2)
All of these three different instances have citations and is easily verifiable.
And again, his cult-following satisfies # 2 of WP:ENT (200,000+ readers)
Consider this, you have an entry about Danny Sillada who like the subject gained instant prominence in a "one-time event." However, his work of art was seen by relatively few people (and awareness that goes with it) vs. the work the subject did. Does that mean WP considers the art of blogging a lesser form of art than painting? Since more has seen subject's work rather than Sillada's, isn't notability more in the subject's favor?
Or we can consider this article a stub in the meantime, which is okay too.
Please consider my appeal sir, thank you very much! I am pushing for this because I am confident the subject is notable enough and is still gaining notability and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry like those people mentioned above. comment added by Killerdork (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have an opinion about this article, but your reasoning that it should be kept because there are similar articles on Wikipedia is an argument that seldom carries much weight; please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you can provide examples of the coverage she's received—even bad press—that's what's most likely to demonstrate her notability. —rybec 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for the heads-up! A quick google search with keywords "Janine Tugonon" you could see all the worldwide press she has received. Now, for the subject himself, I believe that in the article itself, I have diligently put citations from credible 3rd party sources (following WP:NOTABILITY esp, WP:GNG) that will demonstrate that the subject has been covered by various, big, media outlets in the country, see [AJ Perez(blogger)]. Cited sources came from ABS-CBN, GMA Network, The Philippine Star, Davao Catholic Herald which are big and respected media conglomerates in the subject's country. Also, as I have cited above, the subject has a recorded 250,000 readers. Maybe small by North American standards or European, but already huge in the subject's country of origin. Thanks sir! Killerdork (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per DGG. This is all incredibly minor, with a little bit of coverage in mostly fringe media. We're not a tabloid, and the GNG should have some standards. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Calling ABS-CBN and GMA Network as "Fringe Media" is encyclopedic bias and racist against Filipinos. "Fringe media" because it's compared to CNN or MSNBC?
- Wow, "racist"? Note the word "mostly". It appears that you have more zeal than sense. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, not you personally, but for the remark about sources which includes ABS-CBN and GMA Network and the Philippine Star. And when you say "Mostly," are you referring to the other cited websites that caters to Filipinos? Cited sources are not just blogs but news outlets. But then again, you cannot impeach the verifiability and reputation of the main sources. How come if it's a US-based site, it's okay while other else (especially from 3rd world sources), we take with a grain of salt? Zeal for the truth, Cheers. WP:BITE
- Comment: With all due respect to admin User:DGG, as a basic principle of Wikipedia is that, we build. Maybe the significance of the subject is not that notable in a sense on a worldwide scale, but he passes some of the requirement as User:Killerdork said on his defense. SefBau : msg 03:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I also hope that if an editor disagrees, he/she cites the particular rule in WP. We cannot just go with "this is not a tabloid" and "I am unconvinced" line of reasoning without citing the proper WP article and explaining it further. It's unfair that I was citing the rulebook (because I was truly following them) and explaining it in detail and the responses against it does not even link to any WP rule.Killerdork (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)