Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Choy


 * 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. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken Choy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

After looking over this article, I cannot really find anything that allows this guy to meet WP:CREATIVE. He is mentioned in a few sources, but is not really discussed in great detail. NW ( Talk ) 17:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  Userfy  - the article has been worked on since 2008 with little sign that sourcing issues will be resolved. Making a fair attempt to find the books quoted resulting in no matches on Google Books which may mean they are unnotable self-published Kondo'stexts. As the moment the article appears a marginal fail for notability as BIO1E applies. Will change to Keep if a couple of non-tangential reliable sources are added to support the various claims made. Ash (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the article needs work, certainly, but I think deletion throws the baby out with the bath water. Ken Choy strikes me as an artist/activist, based on what I've seen. Evalpor (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The books listed are on Google Books if NW or ASH or whomever cares to click on the links which highlight subjects name. Furthermore authors are verifiable on Amazon.com. Professor Kondo has her own wikipedia page and is chair at University of So California Asian American Studies. Most books listed are most likely scholarly in nature, not mass market. Additionally, he had 2 news segments based on him as seen in references 13/14. The genesis might come from NW singling out 'gay'--as is the usual thinking is to assume one is straight in our society, it is necessary to point out his sexual orientation. Maybe NW is homophobic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthemillionth (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kondo's published by Routledge http://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Performing-Fashion-Theater/dp/0415911419/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608366&sr=8-2 Schlossman's published by Routledge http://www.amazon.com/Actors-Activists-Performance-Politics-Exchange/dp/0815332688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608456&sr=1-1-spell Burnham's published by New Village Press http://www.amazon.com/Performing-Communities-Grassroots-Ensemble-Theaters/dp/0976605449/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608514&sr=1-1 Wong's published by Rougtledge http://www.amazon.com/Speak-Louder-Asian-Americans-Making/dp/0415970407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608598&sr=1-1 Routledge is a global publisher of academic books, journals and online resources in the humanities and social sciences http://www.routledge.com/

Simple searching would have yielded these results which gives rise to the argument that more is afoot than widdling down wikipedia.
 * Your accusation of homophobia does not appear to be based on the nomination and you are in breach of ADHOM and CIV. If you want to be blocked I suggest you think of some more accusations of this sort, do you think my opinion might be because I hate minorities? The fact that Choy may be mentioned in several books was not challenged by anyone here, only whether these demonstrate sufficient notability. My opinion was based on these sources appearing to be tangential mentions, providing a list of amazon links does not address that issue. I have changed my opinion to a straight-forward delete in order to make it clear. Ash (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This significant source, combined with the numerous lesser sources, are just enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass WP:BASIC. Click23 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.