Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Wong


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Harry Wong

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable educator. Bongo  matic  12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There might be some notability here (Gnews search); there's certainly a good bit of coverage of him as a consultant and a teaching "guru," whatever that might be. However, the article as written is borderline A7. Ray  Talk 05:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Not going to be a terribly long article, but it looks like it can pass WP:BASIC. Not seeing the advertising in the current incarnation of the article.  Sailsbystars (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Any of these awards notable ? Edgepedia (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Telly Awards have their own article on wikipedia and managed to survive an AfD. So presumably that means consensus has them as notable.  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. He seems to have quite a bit of press, e.g., and the news stories imply that he has been quite influential in the teaching profession. I hope some of this coverage can be used to create a better article — I agree with RayAYang that the article as it stands is not good. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 3 October 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.