Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Rocha
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 5 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Antonio Rocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. Single source from personal webpage. The name get a lot of hits, many are not related to the person. PF (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability, no indication of rw notability, rw notability looks unlikely no references. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC),[reply]
- Keep (changed) Shown that suitable sources exist but they're not in the article. Lacking from the article. I put one of the better-looking ones in. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage and content I've added. A perfectly reasonable and harmless stub. -- Lear's Fool 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements by 'Lear's, passes GNG.Cavarrone (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow continued improvements. Notabiity is dependent upon available sources, and not that they be used in an article. That said, my own WP:AFTER found plenty of news sources speaking about this person and his work directly and in detail. [1] We have a topic meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.