Deletion of Dan Lok

Comment: Clearly does not meet notability requirements as a martial artist .  Don't think  is met either
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MANOTE||WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Not notable. Article written by subject - blatant 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP)

Comment: I see the weak aspects of the sourcing of the article and have read the above debate and Jake's explanation of sources. It is a good idea to keep the article for now and if more sources are not available in future, it can be renominated. However, I would like to see if the article can develop if given a chance as the bibliography section of the person rings some notability bells to me. Talking about TV coverage, TV coverage does not need verification by news sources, infact TV coverage is a secondary source in itself and therefore should be taken as . It is an assumption that the coverage is advertorial which we should not take at face value and give the article six months (which is the normal time before an article should ideally be renominated) to see if it can be improved. Special:Contributions/50.100.174.75|50.100.174.75
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Not notable. Fails . No significant coverage from reliable sources. The article creator is also the subject of the article himself, which means this is a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:SPIP)