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. The nominator has been blocked for socking since April 20. (non-admin closure) Eyesnore 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Mangubat (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 known of person - no reference, or citations. Mary McAllen (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: reference is of little value to show notability. I would recommend a merge into Madridejos, Cebu#History, but the content already exists there, almost verbatim. Also see WP:ONEEVENT. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete few and brief references on topic. Agree with Crh23. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable person. I expanded and improved the article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The nominator removed all improvents of the article without any reason. See here Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nonsense how no WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:INTEGRITY. Blogs cannot be anything but WP:BLOGS. And you tried seem like hijacking, changing the name of the subject. Mary McAllen (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note All efforts over the last week to improve the article are removed by the nominator Mary McAllen. The version of the article I placed at the talk page (Talk:Lazaro Mangubat#Expanding) has better references compared to the article at the moment. Also the article is more in line with the WP style guidelines. Can people argue what is wrong with this version before adjusting the article again. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the user who nominated for deletion was blocked as a possible sock puppet. Eyesnore 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SvG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I would have thought that provincial governors were notable per se. It is currently a poor article, but that implies tagging it for improvement, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inadequate deletion rationale. Clearly there is something known about this person and there are citations. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reason for deletion is simply false, and the nom is a sock, to boot. It could be a much better article, but AFD is not cleanup. The subject appears notable, anyhow. GAB^Hello! 22:10, 24 April 2016 (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.