Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tian Pengfei

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.

Tian Pengfei

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

[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)

No significant achievements, 90% of sources are simple rankings, the rest talk about the subject only in passing. Strainu (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . I could go on but I think the point is made. The TL;DR version is the guy is a professional snooker player with wins against Ronnie O'Sullivan won the 2010 Beijing International Challenge and who was part of a big scandal in 2006 - easily meets WP:SPORTSPERSON let alone WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a speedy keep criterion. Reyk roaming (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SNOW then. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep - One of the most ridiculous deletion nominations I've ever seen. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. It's been a very long standing notion that cue sport players that are professional are notable (I may even request this to be added to the Athlete above); and Tiang just reached the world championship finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article meets criteria from WP:ATHLETE. There is no specific criteria for snooker and that means it must meet WP:GNG. The sources, both those in the article and those mentioned here, cover mostly a single event in this guy's carrier or are simply not reliable per en.wp policy. From the list given by FOARP, only 1 and 3 could be considered as reliable and speaking mainly about the subject. Strainu (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here: you're saying that there are two sources that you think are WP:RS and constitute WP:SIGCOV? And you're still proposing deletion because . . . . FOARP (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be a fan of WP:ATHLETE, but someone who has played as a professional on the main tour of snooker (about 100 players at any one time), let alone reached the last 32 in the ongoing world championship, pretty clearly at least matches the standards used for other sports there. This may seem like a minor sport to you, but it's not in China (which has over 18% of the world's population), the UK and a few other countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he clearly passes NATHLETE, but a quick WP:BEFORE search would find he's got plenty of sources that talk about him. [1]. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, could you give an example of a sport with comparable inclusion criteria that you have in mind? The main individual sports there have requirements like participating in the Olympics or being in the final rounds of other major competitions (e.g. having fought for world title in boxing). I believe the most promising result w.r.t. implicit notability are the Asian Games, but the performance there has been at the team level.

Lee Vilenski, the results on Google News have the same problems as the ones currently in the article: very little detail. Sections about the 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 seasons are exclusively written based on primary sources (tournament results and rankings) and the Google News result do not offer more to go on. Ignoring the ones that only mention Pengfei in passing (e.g. something like this), only a few remain and taken all together, they don't meet the requirements set forth by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT.--Strainu (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:NTENNIS criterion 3 or WP:NGOLF criterion 6. In snooker terms competing in last 32 of the world championship (the main, televised, level of the event) is a much more significant achievement than competing at the Asian Games, and snooker is not yet an Olympic sport, although I believe there are proposals in that direction. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally WP:NFOOTY. Professional football players are considered reliable ad hock. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stick to individual sports in my examples, but yes, I agree with you. WP:NFOOTY gives a notability pass to a few thousand currently playing people in England alone, so the worldwide figure probably approaches six figures, as opposed to the 100 or so people on the main professional snooker tour. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Football has definitely a different level of coverage that justifies the very broad inclusion criteria - no matter how you put it, snooker is nowhere near as popular, even in China. I do agree with the examples that Phil Bridger gave, and I withdraw my proposal. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this--Strainu (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and 147 trouts for the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE.--MA Javadi (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable per everyone above. -Zanhe (talk) 08:19, 6 May 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.