Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philippines. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philippines|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philippines. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines

Philippines

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 merge‎ to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Philippines

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Philippines. A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services Sources are all WP:ITEXISTS, then ITNOLONGEREXISTS as with most country-specific portal sites for Yahoo. Nathannah • 📮 22:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services per Nathannah. I don't think there's enough material here to warrant an article but it won't hurt to have a cited mention in the parent article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, a bit longer than the current entries at the target but that seems fine, no reason the current entries couldn't be longer too. CMD (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services per above jolielover♥talk 07:55, 13 April 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronilo Balbieran

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

I can't see anything in the article that indicates notability. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notabilty not there yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choa Kok Sui (Master)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this not fall in line with WP:G4? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because the prior AfD is very old, and the recent deletions are speedies for reasons that don't seem to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR (or even [[[WP:NBIO]]). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject has potential for keeps one of which from the bibliographic achievements, the books being translated to numerous languages is notable, if a few more independent RS can be added aside from the numerous primary sources already cited, would increase its keep status potential.Villkomoses (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this attains NAUTHOR if the subject's claim to fame is Pranic healing, and that subject is itself non-notable. There is an unreferenced mention of pranic healing at Energy medicine#Beliefs; maybe one of the sources could be applied there prior to deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Villkomoses are you making a Keep argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a keep argument, so long as what I have pointed out can be resolved, at worst I would suggest a Draftify rather than a delete, as given more RS just needs to be cited for it. Villkomoses (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this article was kept, kindly move the page to Choa Kok Sui, which is a red link. as the current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no Opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBIO. AndySailz (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Andy. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2025 (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.

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 redirect‎ to RuPaul's Drag Race season 5. This has been open for four weeks and it does not appear that any further relisting would draw additional comment. There is only one detailed !vote for keep, but this does not demonstrate that the subject had "significant roles" (as required in c.1 of WP:ENTERTAINER) rather than just "roles", and there is no refutation regarding the lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Pinay

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

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Philippines, and Georgia (U.S. state). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you interpret this person’s one-episode guest spot on Skin Wars and their run on RuPaul’s Drag Race to make them a notable entertainer, despite a lack of notability-establishing coverage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you several times now to leave me alone. I will not be engaging with you further so please do not ask me questions or post on my talk page again. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not a reasonable ask when it comes to AfD, and I will not be avoiding your votes in this discussion. You are free to not reply, obviously. Biography subjects need WP:SIGCOV, and this subject does not meet that standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reasonable thing to say in a public AfD discussion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In real life the subject is a friend of several friends of mine and, since my partner is Filipino-American, I have found that both the LGBTQ and pinoy worlds are very small and interconnected. So I'm not going to !vote. I feel obligated to point out that the subject was eliminated after the 4th episode of RuPaul's Drag Race, but they also have tens of thousands of followers on social media. Discuss amongst yourselves. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 5. Not prominent enough for stand alone article. Reads like a promo. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect makes sense to me too ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that being a member of the Haus of Edwards in addition to the Drag Race and Skin Wars stint qualify them under the first criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. I think there's room to give the article a badly needed touchup, but outright deletion may not be called for. If I am misunderstanding NENTERTAINER please clarify. Relm (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 15 April 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Yvanovich

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

Please see this diff from before I removed a section. I wasn't going to AfD this at first, but after digging into it more, I don't see any redeemable sources, nor could I find any on my own. This article was created by a paid editor and moved from the draftspace themselves, however, it occurred 110 days ago so draftification was not an option. The only source that could be approaching significant coverage is the Yahoo News article, everything else is primary sources, WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, etc. Without the puffery, this article says little more than "This is someone who exists." MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Vietnam, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 April 2025 (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.

Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

Shampoo Ni Lola (via WP:PROD on 21 March 2025)
Flag of Cagayan (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)