Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philippines. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philippines|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philippines. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines

Philippines

Mark Luz

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

This was originally a WP:PROD, with me stating "Unnotable WP:NACTOR which has been mostly unreferenced for years." This was then deprodded by Kvng who then said "consider addressing Template:Pinoy Big Brother contents comprehensively". I don't exactly know what he means by this, but if the argument that he is primarily known as Big Brother contestant, then this falls into WP:NBIO (as we don't have a reality TV-specific policy, unless WP:ARTIST comes into play), and this will just be a rehashing of the Big Brother content and would just give WP:UNDUE weight on a non-BLP activities of a biography. As stated on PROD, this has been unreferenced for years, considering the 2 references used fail WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in mentioned references and all the roles he had played was special appearance or guest only rather than significant role or main. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinowars

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

Only review I found is this one by Comics Bulletin: [1]. It alone is not enough for WP:GNG.

Note: I don't think redirection per WP:AtD is appropriate in this case. Instead, Dinowars should be a disambiguation page: 1 link to the comic and the other to video game DinoCity (Japanese title Dinowars). Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Philippines, and Texas. Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXET-TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as the 2024 deletion nomination. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources in its history, also, none of the sources are from TV5's websites. RandomMe98 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see press releases and churnalism. Are there any that talk about it in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any in-depth information about recent developments, most of my searches for TV5 Davao even on Rappler are scarce, it doesn't help that Philippine TV is one of my weakest points, the community is heavily reliant on misinformation and also false claims that the station existed before Martial Law, I replaced one of the sources with one from Rappler which covered the same as the previous source, but the problem with the Big 3 networks is the amount of churnalism and shownalism that I find, which is excessive RandomMe98 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a look at the Rapper source and it mentions the parent network (TV5), but not this individual channel. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately I think I should quit this article, because there is little to no information. Also it doesn't help that local programming is minimal since its beginnings RandomMe98 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access (e.g., know a language other than English) to any non-English sourcing by chance? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcooper, @Ohnoitsjamie, @CNMall41, @Bbb23, @RandomMe98, @Khairul hazim, @ViperSnake151.... Isn't it also a notable and reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic regarding the Philippine TV like this....???!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxcPVBBrJ74 202.67.47.23 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are scarce, and information is heavily conflictive. Moreover, the callsigns are not used in the Philippine newspaper sources I find RandomMe98 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie 223.255.224.100 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WayKurat 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrabert01, @Vineyard93 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dani1603, @Pratama26 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobSanchez295, @Señor verde 223.255.224.100 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network

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

Fails WP:NLIST as sources do not talk about the stations as a whole. Most of the stations do not have Wikipedia pages and some that do should be sent to AfD as well (including some that have no sources at all). CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possibly Merge summary/overview (not yet written) into TV5 Network Inc. Jdcooper (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TV5 Network Inc. does not provide any listing TV stations on their annual reports. Only on the NTC TV stations as of December 2024. Vineyard93 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the NTC list count as reliable? RandomMe98 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources. IP range blocked for tiresome pinging. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ohnoitsjamie: it's the same compulsive over-tagger we were discussing recently. Jdcooper (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is tough about this list is that we have to deal with infrequent NTC list updates exfiltrated through Freedom of Information Act requests. They can confirm existence at least. And then we have many many stations where there is insufficient material to pass GNG because of poor source availability, even sometimes when a station has been on for decades. This is a useful redirect target at AfD, and while I understand if people have qualms over sourcing, this page resolves lots of thorny problems. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Aksyon Dapat

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is only one RS, that that is insufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do my search in google and didn't find references which contain significant coverage about the topic and in mentioned references too. Hence, it fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donn Favis

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

Fails to pass WP:NPOL as an unelected member to a national body, and city council position is not inherently notable. Coverage all focuses on either failed congressional campaign or general coverage of the Marikina City Council. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and redirect to Marikina#Local government: Still a major figure in local politics; gaining notability in the foreseeable future is not out of the equation. On a related note, if that is the threshold, then Xyza Diazen should also be rediscussed.

TofuMuncher (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TofuMuncher if you want to take action on that page you can. Politicians have notability requirements, where if they hold a certain position they can be considered automatically notable, but they can still be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (singer)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, no indication of notability outside of being in her group. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, and Philippines. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per my argument to Maloi ROY is WAR Talk! 22:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bini (group): Per my arguments at the Maloi AFD discussion. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Gwen (singer)" is an appropriate redirect. There may have been several more notable singers named Gwen that are for more notable. Either this is kept (either as a standalone article or as a redirect assuming info on this article is not there at the main Bini article) or deleted, no redirects. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Second choice is to list this person under Gwen (given name), then redirect Gwen (singer) to Gwen (given name) or have it deleted altogether (will consider WP:RFD on this at a later time). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is passed in WP:GNG given to Maloi as demonstrated the significant coverage of Vogue Philippines and it is technically outside of Bini. She's also a housemate of Pinoy Big Brother: Otso and have importance on that, given to that in the Gwen (singer) § Media image as it is really passed in GNG. This is like a similar of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you just overlooked that her Media image section is obviously have somehow passed in WP:GNG. This is might be another relisting week.ROY is WAR Talk! 00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you use the word "technically" to further emphasize it is indeed connected to Bini (LOL).

We don't create articles on contestants of reality TV shows aolely based on their participation on said shows, either, so I dont know why you'd bring that up. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am explaining to you that she is passed on WP:GNG together with WP:SIGCOV stating all her featured notable prestigious magazines like Parcinq, Billboard Philippines, and Vogue Philippines. All of them are demonstrating the significant coverage and in-depth on her fashion. You are trying to gaslight the facts and my arguments that she is notable at all. And besides, I noticed that you participating only when have a AfD (not a assumption but a observation) on Maloi and Gwen and given it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and SIGCOV is the major criteria of GNG that's why she's passed.

This is a summary for passing significant coverage of Gwen, for participating this AfD)

Billboard Philippines: Gwen was featured on notable magazine of Billboard Philippines where she talks about her life and being a housemate on Pinoy Big Brother: Otso.
Vogue Philippines: She featured also in this notable magazine with her fashion stating of Vogue writer Bianca Custodio describing her Gwen's fashion "60's mod-inspired" and "the girls take a break from their usual image, donning bobbed wigs of varying shapes and cuts."
Parcinq: Parcinq is a Philippine magazine and Gwen was featured in this magazine as a cover pf the magazine. Gwen also shares on her life on this magazine with Parcinq describes the fashion of Gwen as "Black symbolizes death, darkness, and the mysteries of the universe." ROY is WAR Talk! 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these are WP:INTERVIEWs then these are most likely fail WP:RS and therefore fail WP:GNG regardless if such activities make her surpass WP:BANDMEMBER. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. All of them are passed in WP:RS since it was a reliable and have significant coverage with Gwen's fashion with given sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW? Even if this person was interviewed by the Times of London about her life and career, it would fail WP:RS. Reliable sources, while also considers who published it, considers how it was created. Interviews arw autobiographical.

With being said, Billboard was indeed an interview, while the other two were fashion editorials with an interview interspersed on it. I can figure fashion editorials can be used as WP:RS if somebody else reports on it. All of these are primary and fails WP:RS.

Again, competence is required. If an article is primarily based on interviews, and on ABS-CBN and Youtube, it has no place here. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already read it earlier (LOL). It is clearly passed in WP:RS it is notable magazines like Vogue Philippines and Billboard Philippines they have high credibility on this magazine or company so it is a reliable source and passed on WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV . They are not a "cheap" magazines whatsoever and they are Professionally edited publications, and independent. It is not merely trivial or promotional, it also applied on WP:NBASIC which is passed also. It really matters who publishes it, is it unreliable or not? In this case, Billboard and Vogue and Parcinq are reliable (highly on Billboard and Vogue since they are the top reliable). Also, it is not a uncontroversial claims. The interview are usually primary sources, but when conducted and published by reliable third party sources with highly reputable source, they are acceptable.

Again, this is my last argument on this and it is clearly will go over and over on this, and obviously clearly mentioning ABS-CBN and YouTube, Vogue Billboard PH and ABS-CBN, YouTube are different (LOL). ROY is WAR Talk! 07:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not if the source is cheap or not (hence the Times of London analogy); it's whether or not the source is the subject herself. You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW. The closing admin should take notice of willful ignorance of the arguments being presented to you. I guess we won't need another relist. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW § Who, what, where Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews? In this case, Billboard PH, Vogue Philippines and Parcinq are reliable.

Also on WP:INTERVIEW, independent or non-independent of the subject matter, it is clearly demonstrate that Billboard PH and Vogue Philippines are independent, this is a most likely a WP: IDONTLIKEIT argument, I gave you all my arguments but you insisting that Billboard and Vogue are not reliable. The issue of "willful ignorance" as might be a attacking me. Is that there's no policy basis for excluding a well sourced, editorially controlled interview published by an RS from notability consideration. This is not applied to Gwen, this is all applied to all musicians also that interview like New York Times, Original Billboard and Original Vogue if you exclude that, half of WP:BIO wouldn't exist. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's from the Times of London, Vogue Italia, Billboard USA, or Yes Magazine; WP:INTERVIEW#Independence states "The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. For example:

Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source."

In other words, a person talking about oneself in any publication or medium (print, TV, internet) fails WP:RS. As per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability: "Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability."

Now, you could argue there may had been some synthesis on those three articles, but if we're really basing the notability of this person, aside from being a WP:BANDMEMBER, it'll take more than these sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, somehow are accurate but it doesn't mean you cannot use it. The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. this applies to the statement made by the subject, not the entire interview article.

On WP:INTERVIEW: It is okay to use interviews to source some facts. Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information and as I said it is clearly independent, have significant coverage, and reliable since it was editorially controlled. and Billboard Philippines and Vogue Philippines are the one who interviewed the subject and it is not a conflict of interest. Independent sources are more generally reliable than sources that have a conflict of interest or are otherwise involved in the subject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further, "source" in interview is the interviewee (the one being interviewed), not the one doing the interview (the journalist in behalf of the publication). This is explained in "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source." If the article is about the life and times of the interviewee, then that leaves wiggle room for secondary sources.

To reiterate, it doesn't matter if the publication is what you'd consider" high quality".

Remember, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so it should have filtered the secondary sources, which should had done the same with the primary source. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now, the article has been culled of her activities with other Bini members. The article now boils to:

Her auditioning for Star Hunt Academy (I think that thing was not called "Star Hunt Auditions"), but then the next sentence says she auditioned for Big Brother first(?)... so which is which???
A section supposedly describing activities since 2021 but only starts in 2024 on a social media incident where she asked for privacy. Then the rest of paragraphy is reactions soup.
Her being WP:INTERVIEWed in Billboard Philippines... I guess the word count increases if you add the name of the interviewer?
Her fashion sense.
Her being an ABS-CBN talent being one of the best dressed in the ABS-CBN Ball... and more fashion sense and no actual modeling.

FWIW, none of these merits inclusion in a BLP article. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

Shampoo Ni Lola (via WP:PROD on 21 March 2025)
Flag of Cagayan (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)