Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Luke


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Luke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person isn't notable, all sources are primary. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article asserts that this person is notable for being one of the 100 most influential Chinese-Canadians in British Columbia. This does not meet WP:N.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. He is just a lawyer, as his profile concludes, but has done nothing and has held no position of note. Additionally, the article is almost a complete copy of his profile on that page, raising fair COI concerns. Side tangent: I think Brad Matetsky is more notable than Mr. Luke... --Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a very able lawyer, but without significant coverage in reliable sources, inclusion criteria are not met. I can confirm that he was named as one of the 100 Influential Chinese-Canadians in B.C..  But that coverage is not that significant.  I also found him mentioned int his Financial Post article.  But that's all I was able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The lack of significant coverage on reliable sources showcasing his notability is the main concern here. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  03:39, 8 December 2012 (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.