Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Dizon

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. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Dizon

[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)

There are some concerns as to whether the subject meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and we believe that AFD is the best forum for coming to a consensus. I am pinging @Emperork, Piotrus, and Narutolovehinata5: as the other participants in the DYK nomination (Alvin Dizon) that spawned this question. I am neutral. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Councilmember of Cebu City, Philippines. --Enos733 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOL, except for very large cities, city council members generally aren't inherently notable under the guideline and instead need to meet WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but leaning towards delete - I did a search for sources and could only really find one article specifically about him, which is this newspaper column. Apart from that, the only other news sources that mention him focus more on the proposed ordinance instead of Dizon himself. Otherwise, the only results I could find are false positives for other people with the same name. The only reason this is a comment instead of a delete !vote is because I was thinking that the column article might count as significant coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to establish notability. (Disclosure: I was the one who proposed that the article be put up for AFD at the DYK discussion). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is mostly in passing and/or limited to local news outlets, primarily Cebu Daily News. There is the mentioned article on The Philippine Star but I don't think it is sufficient, and it suffers from being a blatant endorsement ("Vote wisely in 2019!"). In the end, this entire article is likely a prop piece for the ongoing election campaign :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the Philippine election for 2019 has already finished (it was back in May) so there is no "ongoing" election campaign and the next election won't be until 2022. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you for opening this up for discussion. Mr. Dizon was recently elected in May 2019 elections for his third non-consecutive term. His most notable ordinance which applies to Cebu City, was the anti-discrimination measure he authored, the first anti-discrimination local law in the Philippines, which currently doesn't have a counterpart national law. The creation of the ordinance was also recognized by the US Embassy when then Amb. Golberg attended an Pride month event in 2015. I also have a clarification with what constitutes "main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians and if Cebu City is among them. — <b>Emperork</b> (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The Globalization and World Cities Research Network, which lists only one other city in the Philippines, lists Cebu as "Sufficiency" so there's a chance it probably should be a little fine. ミラ P 01:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In our past discussions on the notability crtiteria for city councillors, we've actually deprecated the "sufficiency" class of cities as not enough — a city has to be in the letter graded classes of global cities to hand its city councillors "inherent" notability. So I can evaluate this solely on whether the sources are enough to establish him as being significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors — but the sources here are a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, which means they're not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that for any councilmember WP:GNG applies and the sourcing should be more than "they exist," just like for most other local elected officials. I do recognize that for certain cities, whether they stem from the ranking of cities by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network or other sources, a councilmember may be "inherently more notable" than the usual councilmember. In this case, I do not see how the subject passes WP:GNG based on the existing sources. --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. He's one of seven council members of a city of a bit under 1,000,000 people; his district covers 47 barangays, about half of the areas of that city. Under our "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas" but Cebu City is not that "famous" - it's the fifth largest city in the Philippines, and has some tourist destinations (e.g. Carbon Market), but it's not the travel draw of say, Manila, the rice terraces, or the beaches. It's on my bucket list, but I understand most people have never heard of the place. If sources could be discovered that attest to his activism as a minority party member, I'd go with a keep. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete council member articles should stand on their sourcing, not on claims of how notable the city is, and the sourcing here is not suffcient to justify an article on a politcian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2019 (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.