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. The nomination statement may have missed the mark, but that doesn't invalidate the many valid and pertinent arguments for deletion, including asserted GNG failure by way of WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, among other sourcing faults. No pressing reason to ignore consensus on procedural grounds. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Visayan State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nothing but a blatant hoax. Promotional content. hueman1 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Umm, could you please give evidence establishing anything is a hoax here?
• Speedy Keep [was "Keep", probably, because I am surmising the deletion nominator simply believes a proposal cannot be Wikipedia-notable, which is simply false. Note we have numerous articles, supported by sources, on specific proposals and collections of them, such as Partition and secession in California. --Doncram (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doncram: Partition/secession in California has been discussed by numerous reliable sources. This is merely a state proposed by one person in an academic essay and nobody has written about his proposal. You should base your keep/delete comment on the subject of the article itself - not on what you perceive the nom's motivations to be. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Keep, as an administrative matter, because nomination has been confirmed to be bogus by Мандичка and all other commenters. No one, not even deletion nominator has defended bogus nomination. We don't need to waste time by coming up with alternative theories for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, it is well cited and passes WP:GNG. I don't see any evidence of it being a hoax. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually look at the sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main source comes from an academia.edu paper by the person who is proposing this state. None of the other sources have anything to do with the proposed state itself but merely reference Cebuano culture and tourism. Not a hoax, but just lacking in notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You agree the deletion is bogus, so we should be done already. I don't care to begin searching for other sources, etc., as if the deletion nomination were on different grounds. No one, Мандичка included, states they have done wp:BEFORE searching. No one states they have knowledge of relevant languages to be able to do proper searching. This is now just a fantasy project towards trying to delete something for the hell of it. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as something made-up one day by one person, and not commented upon by others. Perhaps "hoax" was too strong a word by the nominator, but searching for sources makes it clear that this has not received any attention from reliable sources. The article Sarani (community) is another "coinage" from the same author, which got an article here from the same editor, and should be deleted as well for the exact same reasons. Fram (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yeah, I'm sorry for that everyone, my point wasn't that clear. I thought you'd get it when you read the article and somewhat agree with me. But I guess, I was wrong. –hueman1 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Doncram. It's just a proposed state. It may be considered WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. AFD was nominated with assertion "Nothing but a blatant hoax", which is blatantly false. The AFD nomination has since been revised to be simply "Promotional content", which IMO is also false.

To quote from wp:PROMO: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ....Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Which this is not; it appears to report objectively that a proposal for a state exists, which is true.

Opinion pieces. Which this is not: The article does not argue for a Wikipedia position about the merit of the proposal.

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Which this is not at all.

Self-promotion. Which this is not at all. There exists no suggestion anywhere, except perhaps by implication of this bogus AFD, that author Pangan or anyone else is trying to promote anything commercial or otherwise by use of Wikipedia.

There is no merit to the revised AFD nomination, and again I think this AFD should be speedily closed as an administrative matter. It is wasting my/your time. It is not okay to use AFD to support a fishing expedition for repeated tries to come up with a valid argument. It is not okay to blast out random accusations. Note I also removed all of the negative tagging that was added by the deletion nominator to the article, which was a) excessive and b) included "hoax" allegation. I don't care to sift through b.s. to try to find some merit in any part of it. --Doncram (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but in ratio 60-45 (60 delete/40 keep): I'm not against the deletion nor keep, but for me proposed states like this are WP:TOOSOON. Also I noticed that it seems to place emphasis on the state's proposed flag and/or constitution. I think it's better to have a list of proposed states and place each on that list. But more compact. In short, there's a form of WP:COI. But I second the motion of the POV of @Fram: and @Superastig:. The original wording of the nominator is not important, but rather the essence of the deletion.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I rather question grilling the proponent on the technicality of the justification which in my opinion is a form of harassment. It is rather best to politely guide people especially new editors time to provide a clearer reason. I would vote for Deletion as the article should be incorporated to an article about Pangan's book (which do not exist, the "cebuano state" article cant stand on its own as "the Pangan book" so it cannot be moved to a new name). This article relied heavily on the Pangan book and the "secondary source" did not support it and only described some component like what is a Philippine Constitution, etc. To weigh in to the truthfulness of the article, there is NO legal process ongoing that explicitly proposing a Cebuano Visayan State and it is a work of fiction written to be like a notable event about a "people's initiative'. The only recognized process are the Philippine Executive Order 10 that forms the consultative commission and the PDP-Laban Federalism Institute. --Exec8 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I think it would have been better to speedily close the AFD, which would have left way for the editor or someone else to come up with a better AFD proposal in the future. But okay I guess the nominator is simply not going to withdraw their AFD proposal, and there have been some others' comments/!votes, so I acknowledge this AFD is going on.

• Comment: Expanding the scope of the article to cover all or more of the secession/partition/merger proposals in the Philippines would be an option. Quick searching brings up others, such as the recent "Bangsamoro" proposal relating to Muslims in the south (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/philippines-duterte-approve-autonomous-bangsamoro-proposal-180722053525020.html this from Aljazeera], also this from Aljazeera in 2018-19; this from 2014, including about criminalization "of secessionist movements of Filipino-Muslims in the south", this from 1995, and more. Probably that is covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but a list-article can cover it in a summary way.

There exists Federalism in the Philippines partly about merging powers to the center. It's sort of unclear, at least from States of the Philippines about how many states there currently are, but the Federalization would create " 18 federal states and two autonomous regions in the Philippines – the Bangsamoro region of the south and the Federated Region of the Cordilleras of the north" per this from Asean briefing.

A country of our own: partitioning the Philippines by David C. Martinez is another academic work to consider.

I assume there have been other proposals for redistributions of power, for mergers/partitions of states, etc.

Covering this Cebuano Visayan proposal can be done in a bigger list of all such proposals, meeting our requirement per wp:ATD to consider alternatives to deletion, and in general developing Wikipedia rather than hacking away at it coarsely. Or if that is not going to be done promptly by anyone, then "Keep" is appropriate for this AFD, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, and a proposal which has received no attention is not a candidate to be included in any list or other enwiki article. Fram (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2020 (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.