Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Joshua Danao (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert Joshua Danao
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement/Vanity page. Questionable notability. Lacks non-trivial support. red dogsix (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT - I cannot find any reliable sources to corroborate any of the information in the article, thus fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NBIO. On an unrelated note, I have placed uw-coi-username on 's talk page due to the obvious COI in editing the article on the Dragon Heart Taekwondo Academy's founder. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nominator. This is a classic reason that if an AfD is in progress speedies should not apply which happened the last time.  Heavily promotional article with unsupported notability. The article was speedy deleted a couple of times but managed to hang on the third. Claims are either unsupported, minor and exaggerated. Do not think this meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG - in reality this is a teacher of taekwondo at about 4-5 locations.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete based on nominator rationale. I've cleaned up some of the promotional content (which involved removing the majority of the page entirely... ) and I don't see any reason why that issue can't be cleaned up, but the fact still remains that it does not meet notability guidelines as far as I can tell from online sources. Appable (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I nominated one of the earlier versions for a speedy and this current version has no more merit. Highly promotional and underwhelmed with verifiable sources. Very clearly not notable and fails WP:GNG. I did wonder whether it might actually be a hoax but I will accept it may just be self aggrandisement.  Velella  Velella Talk  06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and there's nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 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.