Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Andrew L. Tan

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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Andrew L. Tan[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)

Due to behavioral history of the author, this is highly likely a case of WP:UPE. The article fails to demonstrate notability and instead offers myriad of references to news about the subject's dad relinquishing his position and news articles covering his company's dealings. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: According to new evidence I am requesting Speedy Delete as per G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geroge Mason Nearlyevil665 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is close to notable but I'm not going to weigh-in due to the other factors. I wish this page was properly cited. Eventually, he will be back...Miaminsurance (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for User:Miaminsurance - You say that you wish that this page was properly cited. What do you mean? The article has been reference-bombed. Do you mean that you wish that the improper citations weren't there? If the article is deleted, the draft will be in draft space for six months, during which time a neutral editor can tediously check which of the references are any good. If a neutral editor works on it, it will last as long as the work continues plus six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Robert McClenon I think that as time goes by, this guy will end up running the big family business and will ultimately be notable. The only reliable citation I saw was an article that talked about the guys' affinity for electronic dance music. I didn't look at the other unreliable sources. I also have not reviewed the entire history of the page. When I said properly cited, I meant not bombed with unreliable references.Miaminsurance (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete g11, g5, vanity spam. See also this users deleted contribs. VAXIDICAE💉 16:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was already a draft, Draft:Kevin Andrew L. Tan, written by a previous sock of the spammer before being blocked. This sock then made the necessary ten edits in four days, and then created the exact same article in article space. The less likely explanation is that the second account was ripping off the first account. The more likely explanation is that there is one spammer behind both accounts. The subject may satisfy biographical notability, but the use of this spammer makes it less likely, not more likely, that they will have an article in Wikipedia. But they will have an article in a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim promotional content. The subject is notable per multiple third party sources cited in the article.--RioHondo (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2021 (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.