Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John U. Teh (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. The "delete" side is more thorough and persuasive in the assessment of the quality of the sources used.  Sandstein  18:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Michael John U. Teh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and a couple of quotations from the subject. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. Furthermore, several participants in the previous AfD discussion based notability upon those primary sources. North America1000 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't find the link now, but in the last deletion discussion an article from the Manilla Buletin that talked about Teh was linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's this opinion column in Manila Bulletin that discusses some things he said about himself and about the church in a local forum, meaning that the 200 or so words specifically about him come from him: . Bakazaka (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That Manila Bulletin article (here) provides some content, but multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish notability, not just one. North America1000 07:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per The Manila Bulletin. Per WP:GNG. As late as 2012 this article was kept in a very clear AfD discussion for Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – One source is not enough to qualify notability; multiple independent reliable sources are required, not just one. North America1000 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The few sources that can be found are all primary ones. There is no independent, verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not finding significant coverage beyond the 200 words in a Manila Bulletin opinion column, which leaves only non-independent (Church News, Ensign) and not reliable ("Grampa Bill") sources, alongside a barely-rewritten PR blurb in the Meridian Magazine source (compare to Mormon Newsroom official PR: ) that is obviously not independent. None of those count toward notability. So the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources emerges, but even the article only makes claims about holding different jobs within the church, suggesting such coverage is unlikely. Bakazaka (talk) 03:09, 24 October 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.