Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Fok

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article was moved to draft yesterday and it was moved to article space again today. It seems to fails either WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. Brian O'Conner 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Brian O'Conner  07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Brian O'Conner  07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  Brian O'Conner  07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Brian O'Conner  07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep You can find significant coverage in reliable sources such as CNBC, BBC , and others , . passes WP:GNG.ZanciD (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Fails WP:NPROF, but well covered by various sources internationally, thus satisfies WP:GNG. As for the move to draftspace, the writing did seem promotional. – robertsky (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He is clearly notable, the BBC piece alone proves that, Google Books quickly found me a passing mention of his earnings. CT55555 (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Rlink2 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks like a typical case of new-page patrollers attacking a new article by draftifying it out of process (less than two hours after its creation) and then immediately nominating it for deletion when un-draftified, without seriously considering the fact that the article as written clearly demonstrated GNG notability. He doesn't pass WP:PROF but that's irrelevant: it's aimed at research professors, not school tutors, a different profession. I wouldn't expect most tutors to be notable (and I imagine that expectation is what led the patrollers to attack) but they can be, through GNG, and he appears to be one of the exceptions. Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Is a notable person, and the fact is supported by enough evidence and sources for notability. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2022 (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.