Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Clara Belen "Mabel" Sunga Acosta

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. — Aitias // discussion 01:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Clara Belen "Mabel" Sunga Acosta

Previously nominated for speedy/prod but de-prodded. Fails WP:BIO. Article seems like a copy-paste job from a resume/curriculum vitae with little encyclopedic value even if it did pass WP:BIO (which it doesn't). Only sources given are blogs quite possibly by the subject itself. Author is (for now) single-purpose account, non-responsive on talk page. Shrumster (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST - heck, resumes aren't even allowed in userspace. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. Highly promotional article on a non-notable person. Fails WP:PROMOTION and WP:SOAP. To the subject or article creator: go ahead, try to go Lira Luis on this, we're ready for you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Notability. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was nominated for speedy deletion as {{db-nonsense}}. I replaced that with a PROD tag as it barely met the criteria to avoid A7. Another editor prefers AFD to PROD so here we are. One advantage to AFD: The same article won't come back, see {{db-g4}}. My PROD edit summary pretty much says it all: This is hopeless - doesn't meet any speedy criteria so I'm PRODding it - not notable despite claims that prevent A7. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The author is apparently dedicated to making an overly promotional and unencyclopedic article; I strongly advise him to post his article somewhere else, like Wikifilipinas. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (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.