Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Wang


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony Wang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * The references in this aritlce are quite problematic. Some of them are largely insignificant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and others fall into what I would call "false referencing". References along the lines of: John was highly acclaimed for his work on Blah [1]. Where [1] is a citation to Johns work on Blah, without supported that he was acclaimed. Following is a run down of the problems with each reference:
 * The references in this aritlce are quite problematic. Some of them are largely insignificant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and others fall into what I would call "false referencing". References along the lines of: John was highly acclaimed for his work on Blah [1]. Where [1] is a citation to Johns work on Blah, without supported that he was acclaimed. Following is a run down of the problems with each reference:

In conclusion, even if many of the false reference issues above were fixed, they still fail to show Tony's notability, as all but one of those regard his own work. So while the references do a very good job of demonstrating that Tony exists, they do nothing to demonstrate that he is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is supposed to reference the interview, but instead is about the interviewer (a false reference)
 * 2) This is just Tony making a post in a comments section; it doesn't reference anything
 * 3) Same as above
 * 4) This is sort of a false reference. It is supposed to support that this is his best known work, but it doesn't support that it is known at all, merely that it exists
 * 5) This is the best reference so far, but the coverage is minimal
 * 6) This reference would classify as trivial coverage. Tony is mentioned, but only in passing as a member of a list. There is no actual discussion of him
 * 7) Same as the first reference
 * 8) This is the same as the second reference
 * 9) This is the same as the third reference
 * 10) Tony writes articles here. A demonstration the suitibility of an article requires articles about Tony, not articles by Tony. The link also doesn't clearly support the statement it's attached to
 * 11) See the first part of my objection to the previous source
 * 12) Google searches don't qualify as sources.
 * 13) Same problem as two references above
 * 14) Same problem as two references above
 * 15) This doesn't reference the statement given; sort of like the first reference, it's about one person in the interview, but not the actual interview
 * 16) This would qualify as a trivial entry in a list
 * 17) As with a few of the above, this is a collection of articles by Tony. While it references the statement given, it doesn't demonstrate the suitibility of the article


 * Note for number 2 and 3, the article awarding the top 20 links award does include the3st, which is the blog Tony runs. (Although Tony did comment as well).Zelysion (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion


 * Delete This article was speedied once and the author asked for my comments about the draft which s/he has in their userspace. My reply on my talk page apply here as well. This page just simply isn't ready for the mainspace yet. TN X Man  11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Google Blog Search? Since when does that become a WP:RS or enforce WP:N? And it also appears that much of the refs are the result of WP:BOMBARD. And since the image provided (of a non-notable individual) is marked as "own work", one can argue that someone is writing on behalf of an acquaintance, which violates WP:COI. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete – I also tried to help author with the sandbox article, but he did not improved the article and moved it to the mainspace. Author has had numerous chances to improve this, but either has not read his messages or refuses to believe this article is not ready for the mainspace.  ttonyb  (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with haste per Ttonyb1, sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete sources do not establish notability per nom. Reads like a vanity piece (anything that says "Hailing from..." just doesn't cut it for me). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete For the Reasons above and, upon talks with some of the people involved with the creation of this a few of them didn't think this was a good idea to start with along with the main idea of the wiki page being created and most of the work was done by tony wang himself (my understanding is that you should not create a wiki page for your self.) SomeoneE1se (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2009 (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.