Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Phua


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Phua

 * – ( View AfD View log )

De-prodded w/ vague claim regarding media coverage, but I can find none. The subject might very well have some success as an actor, but that means little if the only coverage out there for a "Joe Phua" is on a BBC journalist of the same name.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of coverage in English does not pass WP:GNG. Assuming it is verifiable, the filmography does not meant WP:ENT and does not suggest there would be enough in Chinese coverage to meet GNG either. Novaseminary (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  cab (call) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment is the Chinese name given in the article correct? Even for a non-notable bit actor, I'd expect to find some webhits in forums and hits in Chinese Wikipedia articles, but that literally gets nothing at all besides copies of his own English Wikipedia article and mis-hits: . The Chinese Wikipedia article for A Chinese Tall Story doesn't mention anyone with a remotely similar name. cab (call) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He's in several notable films. He clearly meets WP:ENT. Rednevog (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment ENT requires significant roles. The article doesn't even claim this, let alone provide sources that confirm this. Novaseminary (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:GNG. Projects range from unknown junk to semi-known junk. Roles range from bit parts with a few lines to bit parts with no lines. What coverage exists is almost too puny to count as WP:ROUTINE. If there is a secret stash of WP:RS sources that suggest, against all odds, that subject is notable, please advise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2011 (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.