![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 21, 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk · contribs) on 10 May 2021. |
I am going to remove the tag for now in hopes that feedback might be provided instead. It's difficult with a subject like this to avoid resume style because notability needs to be established and researchers are best described through titles, awards, etc. The article avoids superlatives and squishy language ("world-leading," etc.) and the facts are allowed to speak simply. I will be happy to search for any further material suggested to expand. Greenbound ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This article sounds like a commercial for the persons personal "brand", no better than a LinkedIn. This person seems to have won many awards and involved in self-promotion, but it their actual impact enough for an article?
NoShow (
talk) 8:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The concerns over promo language are fair. I have taken the big step of removing the body, which had largely been added anonymously, rather than trying to parse every line for POV. The lead is dense with claims of notability but it's all neutrally stated, so it can stand. I think I will just do the awards and notable citations as a list to avoid any slippery phrasing. Does this work for everybody? Greenbound ( talk) 01:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
No worse than many academic's articles - moved out of draft space.
Have trimmed some of the adjectives to better conform with MOS:PEACOCK Somej ( talk) 09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A short look at sources on the article, going in order, as of this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phil_De_Luna&oldid=1130215448
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.", from De Luna.
"The description above is provided by Phil."for the sentences written about him.
Overall, the sourcing tells us that subject has won what appears to be a few non-notable (broadly speaking) awards and recognitions, sources written or published by the subject, interviews with the subject, running in and losing an election, "staff" profiles, an online resume, sponsored content, and that he authored an educational book. We should look for more secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject and with significant coverage which currently a few of these at best seem to do. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 02:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
"but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". The other [21] barely mentions to him to say he lost in the election to Carolynn Bennett, who the article is focused on. The main point is we need to improve the sourcing, and have it sound less like a CV or achievement list going back to the comments about advertorialization that people have made on the AfD. If the result is a "Keep", then we have more opportunity to pursue that. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 09:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This reads like a trimmed-down copy of his LinkedIn page. I made a small edit to make his election campaign sound less self-promotional, which I think helps a little, but I'm not sure this is salvageable. Ccoraf ( talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 21, 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk · contribs) on 10 May 2021. |
I am going to remove the tag for now in hopes that feedback might be provided instead. It's difficult with a subject like this to avoid resume style because notability needs to be established and researchers are best described through titles, awards, etc. The article avoids superlatives and squishy language ("world-leading," etc.) and the facts are allowed to speak simply. I will be happy to search for any further material suggested to expand. Greenbound ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This article sounds like a commercial for the persons personal "brand", no better than a LinkedIn. This person seems to have won many awards and involved in self-promotion, but it their actual impact enough for an article?
NoShow (
talk) 8:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The concerns over promo language are fair. I have taken the big step of removing the body, which had largely been added anonymously, rather than trying to parse every line for POV. The lead is dense with claims of notability but it's all neutrally stated, so it can stand. I think I will just do the awards and notable citations as a list to avoid any slippery phrasing. Does this work for everybody? Greenbound ( talk) 01:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
No worse than many academic's articles - moved out of draft space.
Have trimmed some of the adjectives to better conform with MOS:PEACOCK Somej ( talk) 09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A short look at sources on the article, going in order, as of this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phil_De_Luna&oldid=1130215448
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else.", from De Luna.
"The description above is provided by Phil."for the sentences written about him.
Overall, the sourcing tells us that subject has won what appears to be a few non-notable (broadly speaking) awards and recognitions, sources written or published by the subject, interviews with the subject, running in and losing an election, "staff" profiles, an online resume, sponsored content, and that he authored an educational book. We should look for more secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject and with significant coverage which currently a few of these at best seem to do. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 02:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
"but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". The other [21] barely mentions to him to say he lost in the election to Carolynn Bennett, who the article is focused on. The main point is we need to improve the sourcing, and have it sound less like a CV or achievement list going back to the comments about advertorialization that people have made on the AfD. If the result is a "Keep", then we have more opportunity to pursue that. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 09:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This reads like a trimmed-down copy of his LinkedIn page. I made a small edit to make his election campaign sound less self-promotional, which I think helps a little, but I'm not sure this is salvageable. Ccoraf ( talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)