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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ruiz[edit]

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

Promotional article, possible conflict of interest (individual is CEO of "Xelzeta", creating user is "Xelzeta", also created an article on "Xelzeta"—at AfD). Dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) All of its sourcing is unreliable or primary. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - #1 - I Removed the CEO part, there is no more "Promoting". Just because I used the username Xelzeta here doesn't mean it is promoting, I IDOLIZE THEM~! I could say you are promoting or trying to act like Czar the Great with your attitude, but I am not. I wanted the name 1st, Look at my history I created other pages not related to Xelzeta. I Idolize the local developers & actors in the Philippines for trying. They maybe little to be known in the industry but they exist and are making a difference to people out here. Change is GOOD, learn to give people a chance here. #2. sources are creditable the only fact here is that the Video Game Source list is poorly unreliable as a source to dictate everything from. Kotaku and other places do not waste their time on smaller topics, especially coming from unknown parts of Asia. Move on dude... Xelzeta (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable video game developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear business listing whether intended or not because that's what everything here shows, and none of it is acceptable especially when WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it fails WP:GNG, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 18 December 2016 (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.