Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Roel Lungay (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

José Roel Lungay
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous recent AfD was closed as No Consensus because there were no comments on it. This, as far as I can determine, is an unsourced BLP because none of the sources are actually about the subject. I can't find anything useful online that isn't actually sourced, first or second-hand, from this article itself (i.e. "Wikipedia Books LLC"). Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE For procedural purposes, I am adding List of songs written by J. Roel Lungay to this afd as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nom for the first AFD. --Neil N  talk to me 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for no indication of notability, and blatantly misrepresented sources. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unable to find any RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable Catholic parish priest. This article is filled with many unreferenced personal details, and so the article is almost completely original research and is not verifiable. Accordingly, it is in violation of core content policies. I did a good faith search for acceptable sources and discovered nothing. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ping you earlier, but this afd now has a +1; I wanted to let you all know in case you guys want to amend your !vote before the afd closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try an alternate spelling... Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there are actually multiple News entries once we take off the first name. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a handful of passing mentions that confirm that this person exists, . Can you provide any links to significant coverage of this person? I am happy to change my recommendation if notability can be established. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you saw what I saw. I haven't seen enough to change my mind, but I've seen more than the "nothing" I saw before. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2016 (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.