Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Tse (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Tse

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

This is a procedural relist per the outcome of this DRV discussion. The original concerns regarding the article were a lack of notability and reliable sources. The consensus in the DRV, however, was that Chinese language sources were not properly considered and so the article should be relisted. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG. Of the three websites provided at the DRV - [1], [2],[3] - one is a short bio, one is a forum post, and the other does not seem to load. There is no evidence of anywhere near enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to merit an article. He also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well. Giant Snowman 15:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL - article needs massive improvement. Giant Snowman 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes NFOOTBALL as he has recently played in the Hong Kong First Division ([4]), which moots the GNG question. The above !vote is proof that a lot of people do not actually bother reading the article before !voting in the AfD. Thanks are due to Fabregas0414 (talk · contribs) for updating the article. T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens - please AGF and drop the attitude. Unfortunately the claim the he has appeared in a fully-professional league is unverified in the article - oh, and FYI, NFOOTBALL is subservient to GNG, not the other way around. Giant Snowman 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you read the article and intentionally did not even bother to mention the claim that he played in a fully professional league in your original !vote? That seems to me to be even worse than not reading it at all.
And, no, NFOOTBALL and the GNG are independent, and neither is "subservient" to the other. Someone can be notable either by passing NFOOTBALL or by passing GNG, and the fact that he passes NFOOTBALL means that it is unnecessary to address the GNG question. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim is worthless if it is unverified - as this was. If you actually read NFOOTBALL, you'll find it only talks of "presumed notability" i.e. the community feels that if a player has made their professional debut, they will (but may not necessarily do so just yet) also meet GNG. There is plenty of consensus at AfDs for players who technically meet NFOOTBALL by making one appearance to have their articles deleted as they fail GNG. Giant Snowman 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't even bother to do a basic check for sources at all when there's a highly plausible claim that is potentially dispositive of the notability question? Not even mention something like "there's a claim that he recently played in a fully professional league, but it's unsourced"? I don't edit football articles at all, and when I came here I intended to write an analysis of the Chinese sources, yet it took me but a quick look at the article to notice the potentially dispositive NFOOTBALL issue, and only a few minutes to find an authoritative source for that claim. The source is not hard to find: it's on the league's official website, and it's even in English!
Of course passing NFOOTBALL, or indeed any notability guideline, does not guarantee inclusion; note that GNG has the same "presumed" part in it. The reason why sometimes articles passing NFOOTBALL but not GNG are deleted is not because it is not notable, but because, in the absence of reliable sources, it is not verifiable. Similarly articles technically passing the GNG have nonetheless been deleted when they are otherwise unsuitable for the project. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I checked - but found nothing from any reliable sources. After you confirmed the information, I had another look and have since added two references to the article. I don't understand why you're getting so aggressive over this. Giant Snowman 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Giant Snowman...the article needs improvement, but this is an editing issue not a deletion issue. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – seems to pass WP:NFOOTY, but also seems to fail WP:GNG. And despite what T. Canens says, GNG and NFOOTY are not independent from each other, as standalone articles are required to meet GNG (WP:NFOOTY#Applicable policies and guidelines). Participation in a fully professional league is a indication that maybe there is enough coverage on the player to satisfy GNG, but there could be none of value. In this case, there is no indication that the player's single participation in a fully pro league made him more notable than before. However, I'm willing to assume good faith on T. Canens' part that there is good-quality coverage on him in reliable Chinese sources, mostly because I can't speak or read or understand any Asian language and I'm not willing to start now. – Kosm1 fent 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the administrators of Wiki always want to delete article ??? They have too much leisure time ??? If you have leisure time and want to delete something, go to Wikimedia Commons, there are tons of rubbish file waiting you. User Talk:dltl2010 13:04, 10 September 2012

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. (I don't read chinese, which is the language of one of the sources, I'll reconsider if a chinese speaker gives an appraisal of the coverage there.) Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Notability should not be limited to sources in English. Chinese Newspaper coverage as below: 曼城歐冠名單現華裔小將國字號新星曾受訓曼聯《鳳凰網》, 曼城小將願為港披甲《明報》, 曼城小將係港人後代《蘋果日報》. To Chinese and Chinese media, he is notable not only because he is a football player, but also he is one of a few Chinese who listed in European Cup. --Nivekin (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third of those links doesn't seem to contain the three characters of his name. Is there another rendering? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name was known as zh:謝嘉強 before the media made the correction to zh:謝家強. 嘉 & 家 is both translated to Ka in English, and his full name is "Sean Tse Ka Keung"--Nivekin (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2012 (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.