Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Chao


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger Chao

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

self-promotional vanity piece that reads like the subject's blog. no real notability, just a lot of little things cobbled together. probably a very interesting guy but ultimately NN Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. On one hand, due to similarly named persons, it was difficult to find any decent sources on him (see e.g., this search). On the other hand, he has written for National Geographic Explorer.  I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has done a bit of stuff but still does not meet WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow - dozens of completely irrelevant citations. There might be one in there that does demonstrate notability, and indeed the SMH article comes mighty close - he is mentioned in a single sentence, and almost gets a quote in there too. Probably just under the bar set by "more than trivial". He may indeed be able to demonstrate notability, but there's no way I'm trawling through all those ref to get to one. At any rate, none of them seem to be independent. In addition, the article is a self-promoting abomination. It would require a complete rewrite even if notability was demonstrated. Who can be bothered, really? If I had to choose, I'd say delete --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment - All these incredible achievements, and no newspaper articles reporting on them? I smell a rat. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have the same concerns as User:Yeti Hunter above - one would think that someone with such a colourful CV would have a bit more coverage. As it is, there's nothing in reliable or independent sources as far as I can see, although he does seem to be quite skilled in the art of self-promotion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:25, 26 April 2010 (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.