Deletion of Joey Bond

Comment: This AfD is not the place for discussing Romanian names (best done on the article's talk page where it already is) and it seems the   line is being crossed.  The reference issues mentioned by the nominator are valid and I don't think the subject is notable as a martial artist ().  Less sure about  hence I hold my vote.  The article itself smells of over promotion but that is a reflection of the images and references
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:MANOTE||WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: I am for now |AGFing on that "more sources to follow" claim, although everything in the article as it is now screams "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". As we stand, no sufficient coverage of this subject in independent outlets (a requirement, not an option) was provided, much of the info is unsourced (but is of the kind that would be accessible to Mr. Bond and other people doing his PR), and the sources that were cited can only stay if they can be said to round a text that is otherwise backed by ''secondary'' sources (see ). And no, a supposed one-time homage by Obama doesn't establish notability; neither does a passing mention in a newspaper of record. Instead of wasting the community's time with ''canvassing'' and echo-chamber debates such as the above, you could provide in the article itself the sources that establish why Mr. Bond is worth an encyclopedic entry, not just how oh-so-cool he is. As for the toxic insinuations against Biruitorul: he is doing the commendable job of acting as a filter for articles that may not meet wikipedia requirements, and he should't have to stand for this nonsense. If you wonder why and how he got to this pretty article of yours, it is probably the same way I did: by checking out the new articles on Romanian topics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Romania/Bots filtered by the community bots
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:PSTS)

Comment: I just wanted to point out the obvious, which is that the votes of canvassed users/single purpose accounts Checkingfax, Corinne and Jbeaton5 don't do much to advance the "keep" side's arguments. No, averring that "this article has potential", without specifically underlining sources to bolster such a claim, isn't convincing. Neither is advancing preposterous claims of "incivility". At some point, if you want this article kept, you're going to have to show how this individual conforms to  ("has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") or . The rest is simply noise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ENT)

Comment: On notability and GNG grounds.  I was sure he did not meet either  or the  for martial artists.  I was less sure about   but am now convinced the subject doesn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MANOTE||WP:ENTERTAINER)