Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Fu

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. Michig (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. The PROD was reverted three times without due cause. Artist does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Netherzone, you need to read up on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (or 'PROD' for short), as it is something completely different to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (or 'AfD', which is where we are now). In short: "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Once a PROD has been removed, it is no longer eligible for that deletion mechanism. Hence, this edit summary was totally out of place. Schwede 66 10:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Schwede66 for pointing this policy out. I now understand that it was OK for the other editor to remove the tag. Netherzone (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV. Only one source, NZ Herald, can be considered notable and that includes only a passing mention of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Only one credible reference in the article, however this gnews search shows possiblities, although I aren't sure whether its concerning the same person here. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not same person. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2017 (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.