Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Lim

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 and redirect‎ to Kabang. ✗plicit 11:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lim[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has existed in articlespace since 2012. In 2023, the problems with its unreferenced content, adverted to multiple times, have remained. In my opinion, once that content were stripped away, we would find that this article is verifiably about a veterinarian from The Philippines who is active in philanthropic work, particularly as a Rotarian. What we would not find is that a Wikipedia article that meets any number of tests for notability, starting with the General notability guideline and including but not limited to WP:NBIO. Given the article's 11 year existence on en.wp, it would appear to me that this article should be tested at a deletion discussion. That said, I would have no objection to a WP:G11 outcome. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article popped up in my suggested edits. I had a squizz, and it immediately became apparent that it exists at the behest of someone with a vested interest and non-npov. If it wasn't for the overt flowery praise I might not have bothered with the G11 tag, but regardless, as it is I don't really see how it is encyclopedic or noteworthy. AbominableIntelligence (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kabang. It seems that most News mentions about him points to the dog whom he took care of. I've also added a cited mention about his caretaker role in the target article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to removed unsourced BLP vios, then Redirect to Kabang per above. Looks G11, BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a delete first and then redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:16, 28 April 2023 (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.