Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Long (architect)


 * 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. And SALT. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ma Long (architect)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced and résumé-toned article about an architect, whose only evident claim of notability is that he exists. This is referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot carry notability at all, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media -- and it's been speedied as advertorial/promotional three times since July 23, with the same WP:SPA editor repeatedly recreating it again without actually making any effort to address the reasons why it's been getting deleted. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any person is entitled to have an article just because he exists -- certain specific achievements have to be attained, and certain minimum standards of reliable sourceability have to be surpassed, for an article to become earned. I also propose WP:SALT here. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as per nom. I started cleaning up and would probably have eventually nominated for deletion too. The sources are all affiliated. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. As described above: no independent sources providing evidence of notability. Although, as says, the article under this title has been speedily deleted three times, the page has actually been speedily deleted at least six times under different titles. It has been repeatedly created by two single-purpose accounts, one of which is clearly the subject of the article, while the other is either the same person or (more likely I think) someone working for him, very possibly an undisclosed paid editor. The current version is nowhere near as blatantly promotional as earlier versions (in part because of Dom from Paris's clean-up work) but it is still largely promotional in tone, and it lacks suitable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. per rationale given by nom. The article actually seems to be sort of advertisement. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2018 (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.