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 keep. Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{( ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Overturned to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 18. Sandstein 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lance Gokongwei

Lance Gokongwei (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article. WP:DRAFTIFY may be an option, if he is shown to be separately notable from JG Summit Holdings Inc (where he has worked throughout his career). MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Philippines. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 08:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, the article does read like a promotional piece (and I have tried to edit it to make it less promotional of JG Summit Holdings Inc.) However, there are also other Wikipedia pages of other CEOs who have not been notable outside of their business, such as Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr. and Theo Albrecht Jr.. So, to me, keep the article, but needs improvement. D-Flo27 ( talk) 04:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: per nom. SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's been edited to make it less promotional. ManilaStoryteller ( talk) 15:09, 02 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: ManilaStoryteller ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
• Keep Has been proven to be notable multiple times. Deletion cannot fix it's promotionable subjectivity, but, a simple edit will Ploreky ^{Have a problem?} 08:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Hey @ Ploreky, can you clarify your "proven to be notable multiple times" comment? As far as I can find there isn't any prior discussion of this subject's notability (the page had a declined PROD and a declined G11, but neither speak to notability). Just curious if I'm missing earlier discussion here since I'm looking for sources currently. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 06:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Good day! what was I pertaining to is that Lance Gokongwei has already been proven multiple times based on the sources in the articles. In the article, there are many reliable tertiary sources that significantly covers the subject, hence, is proven to be notable many times. And should be kept as per the guidelines in WP:GNG. And WP:BASIC also tells that this is notable. It's okay if you thought that what I was pertaining to was previous discussions. :) Ploreky ^{Have a problem?} 11:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Gotcha! I have a small bit of friendly advice, if you'll welcome it (though, you know, feel free to ignore me entirely, I'm not an expert on anything): at AfD, it's helpful to provide examples and fully state your reasoning. Even if you think notability has already been clearly established by the article, it's good to restate what you think establishes it. AfD is a consensus process and not a vote; clear policy-based arguments are valuable both for showing your own thoughts and convincing others, and can be generally helpful for other editors examining the article. Stating that something is obvious or already proven with no other info is less likely to be taken seriously in establishing consensus—what's obvious to you might not be obvious to everyone else! For instance, you referenced GNG. If you want to make a GNG/BASIC based argument for notability, it helps to give examples of reliable, significant, and independent sources covering the subject of this article. This isn't a requirement for participating at AfD, though, just some friendly advice. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear from other editors on this article and the suitability of Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify. A lot of the coverage is either unreliable profiles, about the company, or extremely limited, but it seems like he might be notable. I think moving to draft space is an appropriate alternative to deletion. There's content here that I think can be improved by the editors already working on the article, but the promotional language seems like a net negative to keep in article space. I also noticed some weird issues with the citations not clearly supporting all of the content; for instance, the article contains the line "Our world seemed to turn upside-down," Gokongwei said, as he faced the greatest challenge of his career which cites this AP article: [1]; neither the quote nor any mention of Lance Gokongwei appears in the article. That makes me more generally concerned about poorly-cited BLP issues. I think all the content here should go through an AfC review before it's put into main space. Dylnuge ^{( Talk • Edits)} 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Fixed the citation for that particular "upside-down" quote. It was from CNN, which is linked now. from The AP story citation was from the earlier sentence that mentions the Cebu Pacific plane crash.

The profiles where he is mentioned include Bloomberg, Forbes, and Nikkei Asia. ManilaStoryteller ( talk) 02:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Added his involvement in Philanthropy and Sustainability to show his notability outside the business. As mentioned in an earlier reply, the profiles where he is mentioned include Bloomberg, Forbes, and Nikkei Asia, aside from local Philippine publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManilaStoryteller ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Apologies for not signing comment earlier. ManilaStoryteller ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)ManilaStoryteller reply

Note: Double keep !votes by ManilaStoryteller, which is running afoul to policies on deletion nomination discussions. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 07:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

AH! Thought ok to comment again since relisted. Double apologies. No more comments. Learning a lot. ManilaStoryteller ( talk) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Draftify Subject seems to be noatble but due to the issues in the tone of the article and using non-encyclopedic content, it is better to move it to draft space. Alimovvarsu ( talk) 23:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Alimovvarsu ( talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Elbatli ( talk · contribs). reply
• Keep Meets WP:BIO per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 02:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Hello SBKSPP. Which references do you believe support that WP:NBIO is met please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 12 November 2022 (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.