Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topey Angad

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 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topey Angad

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE; article is a non-notable biography. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed; subject is an elected politician at the lowest level of Filipino government. Policy requires significant coverage for local politicians, and there is no evidence of it here. Powers ^T 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would've voted keep if he is a barangay captain since it seems that all barangays are inherently notable by default. But this one is a kagawad so he wouldn't cut it even by the inclusionists' standards. --Howard the Duck 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure some people in Barangay San Antonio, Quezon City may know him, but it does not merit a Wikipedia article. At most, only a few thousand may know him from election time, and even less in the regular course of his duties. He should be an exemplary official, or he should be in a verifiable source, before he merits an article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I might as well nominate the neighborhood tambay because he's notable to his drinking buddies :P Seriously speaking...notability is very, very limited. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I probably would vote for keep if he had been in significant media exposure, but that is not the case. Starczamora (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a nice advertisement.. Well, this is nonsensical in terms of encyclopedic content. I agree this fall short under WP:NOTE; and of course, wiki is not WP:SOAP. --Axxand SPEAK ACT 00:51, 8 July 2008 (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.