Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong Wenfei (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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Wenfei[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet the notability standards for kickboxers. The world championship is undocumented and doesn't even specify the organization. I lack Chinese language skills so I can't judge the quality of the sources, but the achievements don't appear to meet any notability standards. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs to be better written, but he is famous in China for winning multiple national martial arts championships. A Google News search of his Chinese name returns 700+ results, even though he's been relatively inactive in the past three years due to injury. In 2016 Tencent Sports named him the fourth most popular fighter in China, see [1]. -Zanhe (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular isn't the same as being notable. As I said, I can't read Chinese so if you could list a few articles showing significant non-routine coverage I would appreciate it. Then maybe I could try a Google translation, though I don't really trust those it's the best I can do. For all I know, those news results could just be reporting results. Sandals1 (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity by itself is not sufficient for notability, but being called by mainstream media as one of the most popular is, not to mention he won multiple major national championships. Some more in depth coverage (not routine report of results): [2] [3] [4]. You can use Google translate to read them. -Zanhe (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was talking about. One of those sources is an interview with him about his upcoming "Wulin Wind" fight, the second is a report on the semi-final round of a sanda team competition, and the final one is a list of career highlights (one for each of the competitors in the "Global Kung Fu Festival" tournament). I would say that all of those represent typical sports coverage and fail to meet the GNG standards.Sandals1 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles from mainstream media dedicated to his fights and career highlights are far from trivial and constitute significant coverage. Even less substantial mention from multiple sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Please read WP:BASIC. -Zanhe (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted a weak keep at the first AfD because of the claims of his success in China, which I assumed would generate significant coverage in China (that I could not read). If Zanhe's claims of abundant coverage are correct, he should be able to give enough examples to meet WP:GNG. I do agree with Sandals1 that the articles he selected do not rise to the level of the necessary coverage. I would also accept evidence showing he meets WP:NKICK or has had martial arts success internationally, as per WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fighter quite easily hits WP:GNG - I would also admonish the nominator not to post AfDs for subjects on the basis that they can't personally read the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the nom, I (and most other English WP editors) don't read Chinese. I think the nom was just being honest. I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask for examples showing WP:GNG is met. Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Personally, I think his accomplishments in China are pretty impressive (see WP:MANOTE) and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding coverage in Chinese, but I'd feel more comfortable with some specific examples and/or proof that any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even without the iron clad evidence I was hoping for, I think a case can be made for him meeting either WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Therefore, I'm sticking with my vote from the original AfD. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2019 (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.