Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (2nd nomination)


 * 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. With all the sockpuppet abuse it's not even close. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ken Hoang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

AfDs for this article:  good video game players don't make them notable. there are a lot of good game players out there, but not all of them have an article. Vsa222 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) — Vsa222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
 * Delete per nom. 24.185.45.183 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed Sockpuppet 24.185.45.183 has done the same edits as Vsa222.
 * Keep Several sources and the article asserts a good deal more than him being good at video games. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I re-added the above vote after it was deleted by 24.185.45.183 in this edit! There has been quite a bit of vote manipulation and sockpuppetry going on. Plastikspork (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It has references and I'd say between his gaming accomplishments and his status as a Survivor contestant, he's sufficiently notable. It's borderline for me, though. JuJube (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable for more than one thing. Plastikspork (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Being good at video games (particularly Smash Bros.) doesn't assert notability.  JungleFuryPizza (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delEte per above.96.56.70.250 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 96.56.70.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As lame as this guy is, he passes WP:BIO and WP:N as far as I can see. The article has plenty of citations and notable third party sources. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment just as we have WP:ATHLETE for folks who play sports professionally, are there any similar criteria for professional gamers? eSports is a significant part of the video game landscape at the moment and seems to be only getting more prolific; some of the above arguments for deletion have tinges of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Poechalkdust (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To follow up, I'm satisfied that this is a Keeper. Poechalkdust (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — I found about three or four actually reliable sources amongst the pile of unreliable sources listed. (Yes, I am contending that mlgpro.com is not reliable.) It passes for notability. MuZemike 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the two sources of notability might not be enough individually, Survivor and gaming combined makes him notable. 98.169.44.145 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As above, either of the two reasons for notability here wouldn't be enough for a Wikiepdia article on their own, but together they just about put him over the boundary for notability, with sources that show this. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article doen't establish notability.  Don&#39;t Feed the Zords (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obivous Keep This nomination is borderline vandalism. Clearly against wikipedia policy to delete to well established, well sourced, notable member of the sport community. On top of that he is a survivor contestant. Note: Other than JungleFuryPizza the rest of the people who requested this article be deleted have a history of vandalism and have used WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an argument. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 17.255.240.2 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of notability. Jeff Defender (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — Keep, a number or sources were found for both topics. Kagetto (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to speedy keep as an obvious bad-faith nomination. I also strongly suspect meatpuppetry in the least, as I had to revert a speedy tag for G6 here as well as an inappropriate and bad-faith AFD closure here. MuZemike 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't you glad that we don't count IP !votes 'cos they don't count? ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but oppose speedy. Notability is governed by nontrivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Several deletion votes seem to go "Being good at video games (particularly Smash Bros.) doesn't assert notability".  Which is irrelevant, it's coverage in reliable sources that is important.  The sources provided in the article are;
 * dpad.gotfrag, which looks like it is a blog entry.
 * MLG interview, which is not reliable since there is no way to get the name of AlphaZealot.
 * Other MLG pages needs log in, since I doubt this is something that one can expect from a well stocked library it fails as inaccessible.
 * thephoenix, seems reliable, gives nontrivial coverage. But, it makes explicit reference to us, which is a severe problem as for sourcing.
 * msnbc, referencing associated press. Both reliable, no mention of Hoang though.
 * cbs, description of him as a cast member for survivor. Probably not to be considered independent.
 * asianweek, trivial coverage.
 * meleefc, 404.
 * smashboards, forum thread, unreliable.
 * Electronic Gaming Monthly, is reliable. The link is bad so I can't comment on depth of coverage.  However a well stocked library can be considered likely to carry this magazine so the bad link does not mean this can't be used as a source.
 * This list shows the immidiate problem with this article. It has a heavy reliability on unreliable sources.  That needs to be fixed.
 * Giving the Electronic Gaming Monthly the benefit of the doubt as far as depth of coverage is concerned we have 1 reliable source. This fails on the requirement that multiple reliable sources is required.  However I consider it likely that EGM is not the only gaming magazine to cover the Super Smash Bros. Melee finals, so other sources is likely to exist.  Since deletion should deal with article potential I vote keep.  It is possible that BLP1E is an argument for merging, but merging is incidental to AfD.  Taemyr (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (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.