Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Dodgson 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Allen Dodgson Tan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the biography does not pass WP:SIGCOV as required under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the references include a quote or two from the subject, who is speaking on behalf of the organizations he has been affiliated with, and other sources are WP:PRIMARY and non-independent of the subject. Moreover, the article reads like a personal vanity page. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Vicheat the majority of the sources are from WP:NEWSORG including both of the national newspapers the Khmer Times and Phnom Penh Post. Just because an article includes quotes from the subject does not make it an unacceptable source, in good journalism they should seek input from the subject of an article. Additionally, the article clearly meets WP:GNG as the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambodiaSocial (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Contrary to what says above, the sources are extremely weak. I started assessing them below, but I've stopped bothering to go into detail after 7 because it's clear that the sources are a disingenuous attempt to make the article look notable, while actually not coming close to passing the WP:GNG. None of the remaining sources are any better than these 7.
 * - Essentially a press release, with just a quote from Tan.
 * - Barely mentions the subject, except as the source of a quote. This is not WP:SIGCOV
 * - This is by Tan, therefore not independent.
 * - A blog. Not reliable, probably not independent, and doesn't discuss Tan in any depth.
 * - I'm a bit dubious about the independence of this as it stinks of press release, but it's irrelevant because it doesn't actually discuss Tan in any depth, it just quotes him extensively in talking about a different topic. This is not WP:SIGCOV.
 * Foodbuzz - Not remotely reliable, or independent, and doesn't cover Tan at all. In fact I can't even post it here because it's blacklisted. Not a good sign.
 * - Not a reliable source, and barely mentions the subject of the article. Hugsyrup 10:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as a resume and lacking significant coverage; this guy has allegedly done some good, but is not notable by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.