Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pui Chan

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pui Chan

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

On notability and veracity grounds. The article has had issues for quite a while and makes some far reaching claims without any references except to themselves. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article claims "Chan has been featured in many magazines and film documentaries over the years featuring his skill and business prowess in the martial arts industry." If so then it does match notability guidelines. If not then it might be a candidate for PROD or even speedy delete. Can the proposer comment on the above claims? What attempts has the proposer made to find sources? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PROD yes, speedy no. Remember that an A7 requires that the article does not make an assertion to importance, which is distinct and less strict than notability. Since this article does make an assertion of importance (true or false), it's not eligible for A7. Joe is a doctor is A7 material, Joe is a doctor who won the 2012 Foobar Award is not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick web search turns up a lot of material about this person. For example, he certainly was on the discovery channel documentary which the article claims (see my comment below). JoshuSasori (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a re-write with references is in order.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some adds in Blackbelt magazine - also a few references that were probably to someone else. Nothing that can back up the claim to be 33rd successor of anything.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment again, but there seems to be a fair amount of material out there about this person which is accessible via internet searches. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. the reference about him being on the Discovery Channel documentary checks out: [1]. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further "veracity" is not a ground for deletion, unless the whole article is a hoax. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very poor quality, but the subject seems to easily meet the criteria for notability. Deletion proposal seems to be more to do with WP:RUBBISH WP:IDONTLIKEIT than non-notability. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the criteria for notability. Nothing a little editing can't fix.--Joey (talk) 07:54, 20 December 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.