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. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines[edit]

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines (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)

Original research and the article is unsourced. There is no such thing as a second lady or second gentleman in the Philippines or at least there is no coverage of such by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of spouses of Vice Presidents of the Philippines; slighly more awkward but describes what this list article is about without a neologism. I doubt that a merge to List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines would be beneficial to that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be the Vice President's equivalent of the First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines, an informal title referring to the host/hostess of the Malacanang Palace for presidential events which just happens to be the spouse of the incumbent president. Note that the vice president entry also includes a daughter of the current female vice president so the scope includes non-spouses. And the term may not event exist and just be a neologism to imitate the US equivalent when not even national Philippine media outlets has occasionally covered spouses of the Vice President.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify as this is totally unsourced but may actually exist as a term however unlikely this might seem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any notability. Rosario (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Please note that this article, under a prior name, was kept on 30 December 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Spouse of the Philippines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion had literally no keep arguments based on policy or guidelines. A summary of the comments is it's useful or "I don't have a problem with this article". --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Power~enwiki. While the individual entries in this list aren't original research, the title of the list is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of incumbent Leni Robredo's daughter holding the role of "Second Lady" is unsupported by a reliable source. I don't think we can just ignore the fact that the article claims that her daughter is "second lady" and rename this article as "Second spouse" when the current VP's daughter is obviously not her spouse. If the consensus is to keep and rename this article. That part of this article definitely has to go.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think the bottom line here is there is no sourcing, and doesn't appear to be any forthcoming. Aside from notability not being inherited, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. Notability is also not inherited. If we look at it as a list of people, then WP:LISTBIO applies, which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Sourcing is the primary distinguishing characteristic, it seems, between the US version of the article and this one - the US version has a great deal of sourcing even though it is also problematic in it's own way. Waggie (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2018 (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.