Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handi Irawan D


 * 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. JForget 00:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Handi Irawan D

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. The article was prodded, and DGG added a "reference" and removed the prod. The only "reference" (the one provided by DGG) is a link to a catalogue page showing an entry for a book written by the subject of the article. There is no sign of significant coverage in independent sources anywhere as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Handi Irawan, created by the same editor as Handi Irawan D, was deleted as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "source" only proves that he had a book published. If that's all there is, then this guy is not notable enough for an entry. Given the repeated recreation under multiple titles, I believe all names used should be salted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The standard for BLP prod is that there be no references to anything that might support any of the claims in the article. That he wrote the book he claimed to write was relevant. that he is president of a national organization is a reason for keeping, and that is documented by his personal website, which is sufficient for routine biographical details such as that, since it is consonant with the book title. I agree something more would be highly desirable, hence the weak keep only.   DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 24 April 2010 (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.