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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Gang controversy[edit]

Gucci Gang controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article seems to be built on innuendo, allegations, suspicions, and gossip. Almost all the refs are from one source - Philippine Daily Inquirer. While I can't claim to know much about PDI, the fact that over half the refs come from that one source, with two more coming from Blogger.com, throws serious doubt on the Notability of the article. Furthermore, the event happened two weeks ago - we have no way of knowing how significant the event might be - a flash in the pan, or not? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is very insignificant. the article was clearly made for personal motives.. i don't think wikipedia is a place for gossips because people go here for relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.207.161 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) — 202.163.207.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant article. The only reason this hasn't been covered more widely in Philippine media is that the people involved come from prominent families with close ties to the Philippine elite. They have been able to shackle most of Philippine media and stop them from reporting on it. If there's a Wikipedia page you should move for deletion, it has to be the entry on Tina Tinio it's nothing but a praise release. Why is it still there? Is it because she is a Cuenca? I suspect she wrote it herself. --Julius — juliuslindo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, there are references from Manila Standard Today and The Philippine Star, not just the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Notability does not specify that there shouldn't be a majority source, but instead specifies that there are multiple sources, which the article seems to meet. As for the "built on innuendo... gossip" well, the whole subject is a gossip event so that's unavoidable. I'm not for the retention/deletion of the article; I'm just replying to your points that I don't think has a substantial bearing on the worthiness of the article's existence. --seav (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article meets notability guidelines and independent sourcing. The reason why other Philippine newspapers do not dare tackle the subject is because some of the people mentioned in the blog work as lifestyle columnists in such publications (i.e. Celine Lopez and Tim Yap for The Philippine Star). Controversial news topics have also become Wikipedia articles within weeks after the issue "exploded", check Edison Chen photo scandal. Starczamora (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been covered by the local media. PDI is the widest read newspaper in the Philippines. If it's covered by Inquirer, it's notable. The nature of the internet in terms of news is its ability to be viral, hence in just a short amount of time the attention and publicity is intense. It could be a flash in the pan but that is the nature of viral picks. Berserkerz Crit (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aside from PDI, another widely read Philippine newspaper, Manila Standard Today, has published an article on the said controversy (footnote no. 9). A Wikipedia article about a controversy is not claiming that the issue is true, it just states that there is such a controversy of public interest. The blog concerned has also gained a phenomenal number of hits, which means that the issue cannot be ignored or excluded from history. Lenoil odarama (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS -- a single bout of news coverage does not make a topic notable. If it proves to be more than a flash in the pan, it can always be re-created, or reconsidered at a deletion review, but per WP:CRYSTAL it shouldn't be allowed to stay on the assumption that this will be the case. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is not it weird that the nominator was anonymous? If the article clearly was written with personal motives, I would have not included the Legal issues and Criticisms on freedom of speech in blogging sections. Starczamora (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nom'd this article. The IP wrote their comments above mine. I've moved theirs to clean up the header and prevent confusion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Starczamora (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of verifiable notability. It's a messy subject, yeah, but if one can't go to Wikipedia for an encyclopedic report on this sort of crap then where can one go? This internet phenomonon or whatever we want to call it may be (as an editor above states) "a flash in the pan" but so are various obscure military commanders, investors and artists whom history has forgotten but Wikipedia hasn't! - House of Scandal (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews, that's where. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to all the "keep" nominations. Granted, there are reliable sources and the subject matter is verifiable, however, as I said, it still fails Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a news source. This article should really be transwikied to Wikinews, if it is not there already. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article fail WP:NOT#NEWS but other articles like this do not? The individuals involved may not be notable to American standards, but this should not be a basis for unfair views. Starczamora (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example of WP:BIAS indeed. Starczamora (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Your comparison of this event with 9/11 is stretching the point to the limit. If there is any bias against WP:NOT#NEWS it is against events that are a flash in the pan and six months later are all but forgotten. Whether this turns out to be such an event or not remains to be seen, but in any case there is another, more serious concern, namely that because the nature of the event is so riddled with gossip and innuendo, the whole article is a complete WP:BLP disaster zone. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep More than just a news story given that it has serious ongoing coverage and apparently has raised serious questions about relevant countries libel laws. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing? Has there been anything else since the initial postings? I haven't seen anything since the AFD went up, truthfully. Google search for the past week == 0. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • From sourcing I see coverage over a 15 day period, so ongoing in this context might be a bit strong a term but it wasn't a 15-minute jaunt. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do note that additional information has been added since AfD was put up, and if you look hard enough maybe you would get an update on Brian Gorrell. Also South China Morning Post has an article about the controversy as well. Starczamora (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; referenced in the media, yes, but no demonstration that this is of encyclopedic value and anything other than an ephemeral celebrity gossip/scandal. --MCB (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Belongs -- at best -- on Wikinews and maybe not even there. Not the slightest sense that this turgidly detail bit of tittle-tattle will be remembered next week, nor any reason to hope so. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep This incident has not only become about the controversy but a comment on multiple aspects of modern life in Manila. Tagasilab (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a commentary on aspects of modern life. --MCB (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for a while per Tagasilab as amazingly well-sourced. There are always such incidents that take on a life of their own, and this seems like one of them. Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and although I'm not 100 % sure about its "staying power" beyond this month's news, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (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.