Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Sanchez (2nd nomination)

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. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sanchez[edit]

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

Completing nomination for Shimofuri mu, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting article for deletion instead on the same grounds of lack of notability and verifiable sources. Due diligence had been done to find for sources to support the article. However, no independent sources can be found as of 2013-04-04 in Google News and Google News Archive in at least the first two pages of search results as they're all either directly connected to the subject or are press releases. Also, notability had been challenged since 2008 and there had been no improvement in the article with regard to notability in the last 5 years. Shimofuri mu (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment As the nominator, I am presumed to be recommending for deletion and should not be adding another bullet/vote. However after I had raised the second nomination for AfD, Lenticel made major edits in an effort to address the issues on lack of valid sources, notability, and poor quality of the article. Unfortunately, the article still does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted. Please see the talk page for my explanation. Shimofuri mu (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on your reply at the talk page. You only considered less than half of the references that I added to the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Preacher in blue jeans" pulls up plentiful sources in Google Books. What exactly is the lack of notability being refered to? I note that the nominator is an SPA In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment for reference, the article looked this at the time of the afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Second nomination for AfD was raised before the major edits done by Lenticel when the article only had 3 cited references. On the note of nominator being SPA - I had usually contributed minor edits to Wikipedia before as IP/anonymous but had to create this account in observance of the rules for AfD. I was the IP editor who initially requested for proposed deletion but was given feedback by KuyaBriBri that AfD should be the proper process considering the first AfD nomination. I intend to use this account moving forward as I agree on the need for edit history for reputation. Shimofuri mu (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I pick up a lot of these malformed AFDs, and will usually complete them as per WP:AGF. But I do occasionally shitcan the whole nom if there's obvious bias or shenanigans involved, telling them not to bother with the nomination or sending them to WT:AFD. Needless to say, I did not see any of those concerns here, even with a recently registered account. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and addressed the verifiability and notability concerns--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet gng. Pass a Method talk 14:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it not pass GNG?--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been improved with major edits. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major improvements to the article. Problems appear to have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major improvements to the article after the AFD nomination by Lenticel provides musltiple independent reliable covering the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (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.