Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Dating Doon

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 merge to Bubble Gang. Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Dating Doon

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

Though there is no question to the notability of Bubble Gang, this particular segment requires significant coverage in reliable sources as a notable object on its own. The article has been in existence since May 2006, and until now it is still bordering on being a stub and wholly unsourced. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on the grounds 1. failure to meet general notability guidelines, and 2. the complete lack of reliable sources. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bubble Gang. I only found one cite for the sketch and it won't fly as a standalone article. I've added a cited list of Popular recurring characters and sketches in the main article so at least the sketch is documented. I also suggest that List of Bubble Gang recurring characters and sketches be Redirected s well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bubble Gang. –Howard the Duck 04:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, Howard the Duck. Why would you suggest merging if most if not all of it is unsourced? Would you consider a brief mention? – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These guys even opened the Philippine Basketball Association season minus the guy that didn't speak, that means they were big enougb act in the 90s. I don't think this is controversial enough for outright removal w/o references. When there are no references, you just don't remove it when you first see them. You tag it first and wait for someone to fetch one. Removing uncontroversial statements w/o the benefit of tagging (so that someone mat find it) is detrimental since you are removing "harmless" info.

For references, this is an in-depth article about the sketch. They even had an album so that may satisfy WP:MUSIC -- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" –Howard the Duck 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Howard the Duck. One article in the entertainment section of an 11-year-old newspaper is hardly significant coverage. It will not satisfy WP:MUSIC because a mere segment of a gag show is not an entity capable of producing an album of its own. While the segment is, without doubt, highly-viewed by the author of that lone article, as evident in the use of such words as "phenomenal rise in popularity," there is, however, a clear absence of confirmation or collaboration of this observation from other reliable sources. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did have an album. It's still on the record bars. I don't think you'll need 5 references for a gag show sketch -- one is enough. WP:GNG refers to a stand alone article, not a part of a section in an article.

And yes, a newspaper article, no matter how old, is good enough in instances such as this. Like I said, you won't need 5 references for a single entry in a section. –Howard the Duck 02:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howard, I've already added that newspaper cite to the main article in my first post.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Bubble Gang. Lacks notability to be a stand-alone article. 180.191.71.169 (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bubble Gang. No notability outside of its parent series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bubble Gang, per nom. - Gabby 21:04, 6 May 2010 (PST)
Keep As mentioned by Howard, these guys became part of the Philippine pop culture in the late 90's that they even have their own album (that is still being sold in the record bars up to this day), and even made several cameo appearances on films and other TV shows. Eli Soriano even admitted in an interview that the ratings for Ang Dating Daan soared since Bubble Gang started spoofing his show (I can post the video in YouTube if you like). Just because this article lacks references does not constitute that it should be deleted, since it is very difficult to find references for any topic, especially if it is Philippine based, related before the year 2000. -WayKurat (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WayKurat's information Trust me, it's notable (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin: - The nominator has a suspicious motive for deleting the article. The article was used as an "evidence" in the BLP Noticeboard regarding Soriano, which the nominator (Shannon Rose) is "up against NPOV edits". I believe that by deleting the article, the consensus in the BLP Noticeboard regarding Soriano will "tilt" in favor of her negative-COI edits. Isn't it that general rule states that an unreferenced article should be given a chance to "improve" (by adding first the "unreferenced" template)? Then, why did Shannon Rose immediately tried to nominate the article for deletion w/out looking for references first. There is a "fishy motive" behind all these. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (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.