Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ervin Malicdem

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. As many editors have stated, this subject does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Nakon 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Malicdem

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject is not mentioned significantly in any reliable sources. References provide in the article: 1 is a trivial link to his website, 2, 3 and 4 don't mention him at all, 5 is a list of 1,679 contributors, 6 isn't independent, 7 is a (seemingly) non notable animation contest, 8 is a web forum, 9 is non independent technical information, 10 is a wiki site, and 11-17 aren't independent. Delete per WP:BIO Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was just about to nominate the page myself, in fact. Fails WP:GNG. A single passing mention in an independent source, the rest of the references either don't mention the subject at all or are low quality self-published sources (personal website on a free web host, Github page, forum post (!), etc). Google doesn't turn up anything useful either. Kolbasz (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:1E, specifies that one must be able to weigh if the subject can be specified on a larger article so that it can be merged, but there are cases that one can stand on 1 article such as this BLP if it is large or notable enough to expound on one article. (1) This BLP with its contribution during Haiyan as the source of the compiled OpenStreetMap data (the GPS map end-product of the 4 million data changes that 1670+ crisis mappers mapped for the Haiyan crisis) that has been used by multiple international organizations during its rescue operations and relief efforts on contribution is valid enough to be placed into a separate BLP article. This is so far the largest collaboration of mapping advocates to which the second is the earthquake in Haiti. However, if evaluators seem not to perceive it as big as it is, there is also another event (2) where the subject has been a part of the team that won the 1st Philippine animation festival which makes 2 separate notabilities that must be included to one article pertaining to the subject.
(3) As the third notability is being the first person to lead a mapping expedition in the Palay-Palay Mataas na Gulod jungle in the Philippines to which the mapping trail produced and shared via the same GPS map is now being trekked by Filipino mountaineers.
All in all this satisfies WP:BIO due to strike 3 of the subject's notability.
The issue that may have so far is the limited amount of secondary sources where Wikipedia suggests in WP:GNG. Unfortunately most of the secondary sources do give it a passing mention (PBS, Guardian, UNOCHA PH Humanitarian Response, etc) as it only either links to the subject's mapping resource site or to his alias or a to an explanation of an end-product... but do take note that the end-product is still the GPS map provided by the subject and paper maps printed by other sources. The details are then explained by the OpenStreetMap Wiki on Haiyan which was used as one of the sources. However, let us not forget that even most of the sumptuous source are those of primary and tertiary sources, let us not forget WP:PSTS gives importance to these sources too with the use of common sense. In the end, it is still WP:RELIABLE as well as WP:ANYBIO
Let us not allow the deprivation of a notable subject of an article get deleted due to literal implementation of WP:GNG without considering common sense.
(4) Manila Times citation is reliable as it is a newspaper in the Philippines. First Philippine Animation Festival is the first ever animation festival held in 2002 with top universities in the Philippines participating. Ended 2006 as its major sponsor (Intel Philippines) has pulled out its operations in the country, then replaced by Animahenasyon on 2007. According to guidelines as of March 2010, BLP at least one reliable source that at least supports 1 statement in the article must suffice. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people Philippine Adventurer (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Philippine Adventurer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete, subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. No non-primary or secondary reliable sources appear to give the subject significant coverage. Therefore, I have to say at this time it is too soon for the subject to have an article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say it was too late. (1) If this article was created around 2002, I'm pretty sure a lot of publications have covered the First Philippine Animation Festival however what I only have is the only remnant from Web Archive. (2) Manila Times is a significant coverage for his award as it is the first english publication in the Philippine since 1898. (3) and satisfies WP:ANYBIO for his award or else without the winning the first, someone else would have; but it is the subject that won it. (4) This also satisfies WP:CREATIVE #4. (5) As for his Typhoon Haiyan contribution, without his GPS end-product, what would have been used? It would have been an old GPS map without the information of blocked roads due to debris as mentioned by American Red Cross. Still satisfies WP:ANYBIO #2. Better keep it.Philippine Adventurer (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User-generated content from mainly primary sources.--RioHondo (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't give significant coverage. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the sources are primary, or unreliable. And as for the sources that would be considered reliable, the subject of this article is not mentioned. the only one where is mentioned is in passing for winning a minor animation competition. The coverage there is simply his name mentioned in a list of the members of the winning team. -- Whpq (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using common sense, I highly doubt the likes of University of the Philippines, Philippine Women's University and De La Salle - College of Saint Benilde would join a minor animation competition. I also seriously doubt a major sponsor such as Intel Corporation would support a minor animation competition unless it is for charity (which obviously does not look like it). I also doubt NCCA would not revive the animation competition in 2007 after the major sponsor backed out due to moving out its operations in the Philippines if it is just a minor competition. I also doubt a reputable newspaper such as Manila Times and a few more publications would not cover it if it is a mere minor animation competition. Still satisfies WP:CREATIVE and multiple mentions of the subject's name/alias/mapping resource site in reliable sources as well as uncontested notabilities in primary sources makes it notable. A good keep. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may doubt it as much as you like. That doesn't make the festival a major one. Regardless, it's a moot point as there is absolutely no significant coverage about Malicdem; you even said so yourself, "multiple mentions of the subject's name/alias/mapping resource site". Mentions are not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But these mentions and coverage do cite the statements' context which gives its significance. WP:ANYBIO WP:BLPPROD. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Was part of a school team that won a local award ("Participants from all over Metro Manila", "representing the top schools, universities, and training institutions"). Not a major award, not notable or that. One of 1,679 voluntary contributors of the OpenStreetMap project. Not notable for that. Passing mentions of him in blogs. His own blog. A wiki. A Forum. Sources that don't even mention him. Not even close to enough for WP:GNG. Simply not notable. Salt as this was created just after the repeatedly rejected draft was deleted at MfD as a hopeless cause. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..representing the top schools, universities, and training institutions in the country...which to date has been the only animation competition of its kind held in the Philippines.." A major award. Keep would be good. WP:CREATIVE WP:ANYBIO Philippine Adventurer (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't really make claims of notability. It's basically "some guy who writes a blog, makes GPS tracks, does some art and edits OSM". Seems like a nice enough person, and doing some cool stuff, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. --Slashme (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual claims of notability, just a guy who likes to do a few random things. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2015 (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.