Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janos Delacruz

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. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Delacruz

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

This was deleted via prod a day ago, but was resurrected. Deleted prods that are resurrected. are sent to AFD, so I'll be using the reason I used in the prod: all sources fail WP:RS. –H T D 15:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom regarding sources. Article is largely written like a resume. I have a feeling this is an WP:AUTOBIO. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did the proposer or anyone look for other sources? He has coverage in major Filipino publications: Manila Bulletin[1], Filipino Reporter[2], Filipino Daily Inquirer[3], and a group show covered in the well-known UAE newspaper The National[4]. I'm not quite certain that's enough but it's something. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sufficient references to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think, based on Colapenisula's sources plus another substantive 2012 article in the Manila Bulletin [5] or [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit/cleanup. Meets WP:BASIC: [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found as well as these [10][11], Was WP:BEFORE even followed?. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with that sufficient references to meet GNG Shad Innet (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2015 (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.