Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchor F. Cichon


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Melchor F. Cichon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR in its current form and I am unable to find any better sources that are not circular references back to Wikipedia. It reads like a resume, and the only two current sources are a Geocities site and a Blogspot blog; neither appear to be reliable sources per WP:RS. If those two sources are disqualified then it's an entirely unsourced biography of a (presumably) living person. Based on the text as written, it still appears to fail WP:AUTHOR as there is no evidence that this author's work is particularly well-known or important to the field (two awards that lack their own pages; no evidence that it was "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Page has been tagged since 2011 as needing help. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry,  and Philippines. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to have led an active and productive life, but nothing that comes even closely to any criteria of notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, non-notable author. Google News search brings up no reliable sources for him. Material Works  (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Here's a reliable source for the Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtas. While I appreciate the work he's done in his craft and for our alma mater, I think they are of local notability. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete was unable to find other sources to back this up.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as a pass of a different N guideline, NACADEMIC. His many awards & affiliations should demonstrate notability. BhamBoi (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any NACADEMIC criterion that he could possibly satisfy, and the above comments already make clear why he has not demonstrated notability through GNG or NAUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the sources available for the subject, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR aren’t satisfied. If there were sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NOTABILITY and satisfy WP:GNG, I would be more inclined to vote keep. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2023 (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.