Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lung Kim Sang

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 with no prejudice for recreation of a good version. Geschichte (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lung Kim Sang[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)

While AfD is not cleanup, there've been several attempts to cleanup this ghastly mess of an article over the years, all to no avail. It has seven separate tags, going back several years, none particularly addressed, including (per the talk page) serious questions as to the notability of the awards underpinning such notability as the article claims. Much of the article was written, and remains, in untranslated Chinese, and far too many of the references are primary or unreliable.

But as much as anything else, its turgid, poorly translated prose, combined with so much that's trivial and/or irrelevant in a huge 120+ kilobyte article, makes this a prime TNT candidate, and that's the chief rationale for this AfD. I would hope and trust that before advocating keeping the article, anyone so moved attempt a meaningful cleanup. (No prejudice, of course, against a properly sourced replacement article written in a properly encyclopedic style.) Ravenswing 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the hell is this article? I can't judge on his notability but many many many work is needed to bring this article up to better standards though. VocalIndia (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the infobox image caption says "2010 and 2011" and the identical image in the Chinese Wikipedia article says "2019" may be indicative of the English article's accuracy. ~EdGl talk 13:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's just a horrid mess top to bottom. Probably the worst article I've seen in 15 years that wasn't an immediate G1 candidate, and worse than almost all of them. Ravenswing 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to rewrite after I checked. VocalIndia (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many coverages in Chinese via Google News, [1], [2]. VocalIndia (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps so, but I'm not staking the nomination on the subject's notability: I'm stating that the article is unsalvageable without a vast amount of work that I don't believe any editor would be willing to undertake ... and certainly in the last several years, no one has. Someone willing to write a properly sourced and encyclopedic article on the subject, from scratch, could do so with my great goodwill (little though it would be required). Ravenswing 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I thought this was a machine translation but the google translation of the zh.wiki article is perfectly clear. As the subject is notable it would be preferable to get rid of the current version entirely and use the zh.wiki article as basis for a complete rewrite. I’m happy to do this is the outcome is “keep”. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify 99% of the poor content was added by a single IP editor. The version of the article before the changes isn't the best either. Stubifying this would probably be the best option. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this is that we can't enforce "stubifying." If the IP or anyone else wants to dump the crap right back in, we can't stop them. Ravenswing 05:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree! this old version is better ! VocalIndia (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could add it back as well if we TNT the article & it gets recreated (since topic is notable). We have ways to handle editors who add bad content to the Wiki. But I don't see any good reason to delete the article as stubifying can salvage it, and Mccapra has offered to rewrite the article. I feel like clearing it to the infobox + "Loong Kim Sang (born 4 November 1944) is a Cantonese opera performer" + a source would be a good start while the article gets back on track. Jumpytoo Talk 05:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I’ve copied it to my sandbox now and I’ll be making a start today. I may be some time..... Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. We are waiting your version ! Wikipedia needs more people like you!VocalIndia (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My goodness, what the hell is this article? It is thoroughly unreadable in its current state. I strongly doubt the article can be rewritten given its broken state. I suggest TNT for this crap, hopefully we'll move Mccapra's better version in the place of this abomination of a Wikipedia article. Java Hurricane 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok I’ve struck my keep vote above. The article subject is very clearly notable but there’s no point in keeping the current article. I hope to have produced something serviceable in a couple of weeks. Mccapra (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2020 (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.