J. Devn Cornish ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Should not have been kept. Three people “voted” keep, but none based his argument in GNG, only some claim that his office automatically makes him notable, which is not based in policy. Eight months later, and there are still no reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Time to delete this p b p 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I do close on 3/4 keeps and everyone's fine with it (I only close on 3/4 Providing there's strong arguments, If they're not all that strong I don't touch)- This had been up for 2 weeks with only 3 keeps so personally believed this was a Keep - Admittingly on this occasion I should've left it open longer but meh we're all human and all make mistakes, Anyway I have no objects to this being relisted or deleted. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Looking back at the article and the AFD I realize I had closed too early even for my liking but at the end of the day this shouldn't of ever been brought here anyway, It simply should've been renominated, Anyway I admit the closure was a mistake but we all make mistakes from time to time, Can we now close this so it can be deleted accordingly.... – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I find it very refreshing when people, after considering the notability guidelines and accepting that the criteria have not been met, put forward arguments that say they nevertheless consider that a topic is notable. It is an "occasional exception" and they have reached that conclusion by applying "common sense", according to WP:N. I think their opinions should be respected. Of course other people may decide they will treat the criteria as rules to be obeyed, and they are entitled to do that, but the notability guidelines and our other policies do not require it. I am concerned that there may not be verifiability of some content but the AFD did not address that sufficiently to conclude that existence of the article was a breach of policy. Thincat ( talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: So you're basically saying that the article doesn't meet GNG and it may contain unsourced statements, but keep it anyway? p b p 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I think my statement was clear regarding GNG. If there are unsourced statements they can be removed after a reasonable challenge. If, after that, the article lacks adequate content or becomes unbalanced, or fails BLP, those would be good reasons to raise in an AFD nomination. Thincat ( talk) 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - In the AFD discussion, only the nominator was in favor of deletion. Deletion at AFD requires a consensus. In my opinion, an article should never be deleted at AFD when only the nominator supports deletion (barring meeting speedy deletion criteria, in which case it isn't really being deleted because of the AFD), because one person's opinion simply isn't a consensus. Even if we were to discount the three keep votes, the article should still be retained as a no consensus close. However, WP:N makes it clear that people can advance other arguments for keeping an article besides meeting the listed notability guidelines, and that occasional exceptions are allowed. In this case, a participant advanced an argument that the article should be kept despite not meeting the normal notability guidelines, and the other participants (besides the nominator) were convinced by that argument, so this seems like a clear keep. I don't think there would be anything wrong with nominating the article at AFD again in the future if you think the consensus might be different, but I don't see any way the AFD that took place could have been closed as delete. Calathan ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but why bother? Given the arguments put forth in the AfD, keep was the only plausible close. But, why does it matter? That was 7 months ago. Rather than come here, if you think it's delete-worthy, just renominate it for AfD. Simpler, faster, less wiki-lawyering-er. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment, close is probably reasonable given the local consensus (even if I would had preferred a relisting), but the AfD is old enough to consider to have another AfD in the next months, given that the subject is IMO clearly non-notable and all the three keep votes came from well-known biased mormon editors. Cavarrone 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - WP:N is almost always the place to start discussions, but it doesn't have to always be where it ends - as with everything, common sense exception applies, as would seem to be the case here. Wily D 07:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. The article does not cite any third-party reliable sources, only LDS publications. This was still the case at the time of the AfD and no sources were mentioned during the course of the discussion. That part of the GNG is written into Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability, which as core policy overrides any consideration based on notability guidelines or local consensus. Hut 8.5 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse by default due to elapsed time. The appropriate venue would be a new AFD. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse simply due to the passage of time and because a new AfD would be better than an overturn here. If this had been closed yesterday, I'd be of a similar mind to Hut 8.5. It is all very well to argue for exceptions for notability guidelines, as Thincat says above. But it is another thing entirely to depart from core verifiability policies and argue to keep an article with zero independent sources. A reasonable closing administrator would have recognised that we were in the territory of the latter case here. Let's re-nominate this straight away and reach the correct outcome this time. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - just nominate it again. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse add me to the "nominate it again" chorus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Starblind:@ Stalwart111:: should I re-nom it right now, on the 10th-12th when this is closed, or wait even longer after that? p b p 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close based on content of discussion, but allow for a renomination after this review is closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Douglas Quijano ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is mostly a technical nomination. Basically, I feel that the consensus in the original AfD was not strong enough to result in a delete outcome; rather, the AfD should have at the least been relisted for one more week. The outcome wasn't even a soft delete either. Also, as I mentioned in the AfD, there had been some magazine coverage (albeit mostly offline and thus difficult to find) from YES! about the person even before his death, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn- I'm not seeing consensus to delete in the discussion. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Meh. It's a pretty marginal consensus. I agree that either relisting for another week or a soft delete would have been a better close, but not so much that I'm willing to say this was beyond discretion. I suspect the better path this could have taken was if Narutolovehinata5 asked, on the closing admin's talk page, Would you mind reclosing this as WP:SOFTDELETE instead of Would you mind if I took this to DRV?, Nakon would have probably agreed, and then we'd get to the right result without a week of bureaucracy. Hint, hint. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Two things though. For one, I did mention in the original AfD that I was leaning towards a weak keep, so asking for the article to be deleted would be counter-intuitive. Second, DELREV also mentions that one can take an article to deletion review if "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I guess the links provided below count. I wouldn't mind though if the article is briefly recreated and a new AfD is made to determine a stronger consensus. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The dead link on the talk page referred to in the AFD nomination has been archived here. I can't help but think he is very famous in his own country [1] but I also suppose process was followed at the AFD. Thincat ( talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

He wasn't very famous over here, but he was quite well-known among the showbiz industry. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I think the close is fine, though if Narulovehinta wants it re-opened to comment further, that should be done. I would not support re-opening to merely attract more disinterested editors - relistings - especially multiple relistings, show that they're pretty disinterested. Similar to the SOFTDELETE would've been wise comment by RoySmith above. Wily D 07:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The discussion had already been listed for 23 days with no comments in the 12 before it was closed. How much more do you want? Stifle ( talk) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: @ WilyD: At the very least, for the article to be temporarily undeleted and renominated for deletion, to get some clearer consensus. Then follow whatever consensus that AfD decides. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 10:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm trying to ask is that given nobody contributed in 12 days, "get some clearer consensus" doesn't seem like something that listing again will accomplish. There has to come a time when we accept that nobody else cares and close the discussion on what we have. Stifle ( talk) 12:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. In a low-participation AfD that has been listed for three weeks, you have to give the closing admin a little bit of latitude. This close was well within that latitude. All of the comments in the AfD were well-researched and well-argued. It was just a judgement call about whether the sources met the significant coverage bar. Nakon was entitled to take the view that the angle at possible offline sources was a bit speculative (would YES! have been significant coverage?) and that the two delete !votes amounted to a consensus. I doubt that those delete !voters ignored Naturolovehinata's comments; it should be assumed that their delete views continued to be held after they were made. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I'm with Reyk in that I can't see a consensus to delete. Like Stifle and Mkativerata, I do think "delete" could potentially have been within discretion based on that discussion. However, I differ from them because I think that when a sysop closes against the apparent consensus, their closing statement needs to contain their reasoning. So "delete" would have been okay but to my mind, "unexplained delete" is not.— S Marshall T/ C 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I agree there wasn't consensus to delete. But did you approach the closer and simply ask them to label it as a soft delete? I don't see anything on the closer's talk page and it seems likely they'd be willing to make that change if requested. Hobit ( talk) 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Striking the above, I went to the wrong admin's page (clicked a link for the above discussion?). Overturn to NC or softdelete I don't see consensus for deletion, but softdelete would probably be within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist to allow for more discussion about sources not discussed at the AfD.

  Here are the sources I have found (ordered chronologically):

  1. "Star manages celebrate birthdays in style". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2000-08-05. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

     The article notes:

     Ethel Ramos and Douglas Quijano, two of the most respected star builders and handlers we have today, have just celebrated their birthdays.

     ...

     Quijano manages Richard Gomez, Anjo and Jomari Yllana, Joey Marquez, Aiko Melendez, Eric Fructuoso, John Estrada, Janice and Gelli de Belen, and has also into line-producing for Regal.

     Quijano had his billiard, booze and ball party at Padi's Point West ave., where we spotted all his alagas except for De Belen.

  2. "Public Eye - The Power 25". Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. July 2002. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

     The article notes:

     11. DOUGLAS QUIJANO, Talent manager

     « STAR MAKER

     Douglas Quijano

     Douglas Quijano has a sharp eye for spotting raw and young talent and molding them into screen idols. That's what he did with the likes of Richard Gomez and Jomari Yllana. Quijano is foremost an image-maker, and he uses that experience to carefully shape his talents into sophisticated sex symbols programmed to sell anything from movie tickets to underwear. With the transfer of most of his talents to GMA, he is also actively involved in the conceptualization and casting of programs there.

  3. Ganzon, Tina (2009-06-13). "Douglas Quijano found dead in Quezon home". ABS-CBN. Archived from the original on 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  4. Lo, Ricky; Ozaeta, Arnell (2009-06-14). "Talent exec Douglas Quijano found dead". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  5. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano 'He was a dolphin in world of sharks'". Inquirer Libre. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  6. Dedace, Sophie (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano, 64, was first manager of Goma, Aga, and Pip". GMA Network. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  7. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-18). "Trivia: Dougs' very first talent was Pip". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  8. Ching, Mark Angelo (2009-06-20). "Douglas Quijano gets accolades from his talents on the last night of his wake". Philippine Entertainment Portal. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  9. Villasanta, Boy (2009-06-22). "Lahat sila'y lumuha sa kamatayan ni Douglas Quijano" [All of them shed tears for the death of Douglas Quijano]. Pinoy Weekly (in Filipino). Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  10. Panaligan, Jojo P. (2009-07-24). "Douglas Quijano's wards move on to new managers". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2012-05-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

  Analysis of the sources:

  The first two sources were published before Douglas Quijano's death. They are from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (which is considered one of the Philippines' newspapers of record) and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

  The sixth source, an obituary from GMA Network, is roughly 730 words. The ninth source, an obituary from Pinoy Weekly, is roughly 1,414 words.

  The widespread coverage of Quijano's death strongly indicates that he is notable because he did not die an unusual death (which would attract media attention). Instead, he died a natural death (by heart attack).

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Douglas Quijano to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 05:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Cunard's possible verdict shifting new sources (also imo there was no consensus to begin with so I second what Reyk & S Marshall say).14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.58.82.6 ( talk)