Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobe Jae Chong

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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Jae Chong[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)

Contested PROD. Non-professional player who has not received significant coverage. The best I can find is this, which is decent but in local media and not enough on its own. There is something similar in the Sun but that can't be used. Giant Snowman 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bizarre nomination... clearly notable footballer with ongoing career and many sources... why trying to delete all of User:Dietermueller76's articles... I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (3 pages long), [9], among many many more sources. Young player with ongoing career... Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is non-RS; source 2 was mentioned in my nomination as being OK; source 3 is the Sun and cannot be used; source 4 is a blog; source 5 is OK; source 6 looks to be routine transfer?; source 7 is an interview; source 8 same as source 6; source 9 is routine transfer news. Overall still not enough in my view. Giant Snowman 16:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source 1 is not unreliable... how is source 2 somehow "unable to be used" - The Sun is reliable for non-gossip/speculation sports reporting... source 4 is a "blog" from a journalism graduate with 250000 hits and 20000 Twitter followers... source 6 routine is not "routine transfer news"... and source 7 has secondary coverage with the interview... On top of that, he is young and has an ongoing career... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun cannot be used - the other sources are not enough - his 'ongoing' career is in the seventh tier of English football! Giant Snowman 17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Sun is reliable for non-gossip/speculation sports reporting... My other points about the sources above still stand... He is young and has an ongoing career and most likely will progress higher and gain more coverage (as if the coverage he has already gotten somehow isn't enough)... and even for a "guy in the seventh tier of English football", he has gotten a lot of coverage already while playing there! Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THESUN says otherwise - and you have yet to explain how the sources are reliable. Your 'he will progress' is pure crystalballery. Giant Snowman 17:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman if you agree that sources 2 and 5 are okay, shouldn't that be enough to keep the article? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'ok', not 'perfect'. As I also stated above, "overall still not enough in my view". Giant Snowman 17:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source 1 is not unreliable... How, after all this time, are you still unable to recognize obvious SPS? JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV Alvaldi (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, the sources listed above are not enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I couldn't find any significant coverage and the links listed above come up way short. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. Above referecnces are already significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Giant Snowman's source evaluation above. With that in mind, the article does not meet GNG. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (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.