Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Xing


 * 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. This discussion has gone on long enough-12 days now; I cannot recall ever hearing such totally irrelevant keep arguments, scarcely worth the refutation &  RGTraynor's analysis of the claimed awards seems definitive.,   DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Li Xing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

fails WP:ENTERTAINER; as a general rule, if your most prominent role is "featured extra" in a film that hasn't yet been made? Probably not notable. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  if sourcing found. Sure, fails the sub-category of WP:ENT... but his many awards for accomplishments as a martial artist seem to surpass WP:BIO's "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Struck my provisional keep. Sources were not found.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * notable award or honor. First place at the Takamori School of Martial Arts in Karate is not a notable award unless the school is known, which it doesn't seem to be. Its on the same level as the half-colours I won in 5th form. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Since I can only hope for sourcing, I have added this to deletion sorting for martial arts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're failing to address the problem with your comments here. Please explain, in any amount of detail, how the Takamori School of Martial Arts is a reputable and highly regarded award-granting body? Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I might guess the school could be named for Saigo Takamori, I do not know who the actual namesake Takamori is nor know the school.... and so I am awaiting input from the experts. Which is why I added this AFD to deletion sorting for martial arts...  and why my comment above contained a caveat.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched on "Takamori School of Martial Arts" and the only hit I found was this article. I can find no evidence that his martial arts awards are anything except those presented by a local school. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I have not been able to find any reliable sources to support this article. The article itself appears to be self-promotion. Janggeom (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "You shoot that dog!"--Lionmadness (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are a new user (based on your edit count), you might like to refer to Guide to deletion as a helpful guide. I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by your statement, as it is not clear to me. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the moral saying "You shoot that dog!"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, would you mind explaining, err.. what the hell you mean? Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per AtlanticDeep and the fact that no concensus was reached last time, which is often, by default, a keep anyway.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that no consensus was reached does not mean that any future debate should result in keep; otherwise we'd have a double jeopardy rule. I cannot see another AfD; where exactly was this debated before? Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was debated earlier this year, just not at the regular Afd venue. "You shoot that dog!"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) where and 2) what the heck does "you shoot that dog" mean? And again, a previous debate does not invalidate a second debate, otherwise we'd have a double jeopardy rule. Consider the evidence at hand rather than blindly following the pack. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, it doesn't. I was just pointing a previous debate out that did decide to keep the article, (not at Afd obviously). And how am I "following the pack" when I was actually the first to suggest keeping per "You shoot that dog?"--AtlanticDeep (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring, for a second, that "You shoot that dog" is not a valid argument; I was more replying to Lionmadness, who was following the pack by saying "well the previous debate said keep, so without examining the issue I'm going to go with keep too". Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that I haven;t examined the issue. Stop speaking for others. Should I say "Ironholds is here even though he doesn't know what Afd is?" Of couse not. I don't have a clue what he knows and doesn't know in the same way he doesn't know what I know and don't know. Even WP:AGF that was not a good comment.--Lionmadness (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)*
 * "Strong keep per AtlanticDeep and the fact that no concensus was reached last time, which is often, by default, a keep' anyway." very clearly implies that you've not examined the article. The comment you've made simply cites a previous discussion and dog-killing as being your case-deciders, nothing about how the article passes WP:ENT or its particular merits. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete You shoot that cat? Wtf is you shoot that dog supposed to mean? This article fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and therefore merits deletion. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule Team Delete: Let's review. This fellow's appeared as an extra in a few films.  The article claims that in a martial arts career he suspended before his 18th birthday, he's earned TEN different black belts from a school we can't prove exists.  His IMDB page is, in fact, devoid of work.  None of the films in which he claims to have worked actually include him in their cast lists, even with the two that have long lists of uncredited performers, and I can't find any evidence that the first two films he claims to have worked on actually exist.  No valid policy grounds for keeping this article have been proffered, and in particular I ask MichaelQSchmidt to withdraw his Keep vote immediately; frankly, I'm staggered at a Keep vote based on an assertion of notability on which it's plain not even the most cursory examination was done.   RGTraynor  14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Immediately? With respects, as stated above my keep was provisional. The guideline-based "grounds" for my provisional keep were the assertions of notability through the multiple awards. Wishing to myself WP:AGF, and not being expert on the usually non-notable sport of martial arts nor a reader of languages other than English, I tagged the article for attention of the martial arts wikiproject and hoped for input from the experts. I waited and watched. Sources were not found.  So I have struck my provisional keep... but not because you demanded I do so.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply: An assertion of notability is not a ground to advocate Keep; damn near every article at AfD, and every hoax article ever written, does that much. All an assertion of notability does is debar a Speedy Delete.  Since AfD's a discussion on the merits of an article, one would hope that people advocate Keep on any claim proven credible.   RGTraynor  21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting Afd discussion with arguing on both sides of the fence for different reasons. But at the end of day, he still won TEN black belts. My !vote shall be Keep.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you cite some kind of policy or guideline, please? The black belts are from a completely unknown school. I could set up the Ironholds School of Pseudo-Judo in my back garden and award myself 42 black belts; that doesn't justify an article on me. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ..okay, now please show how that policy applies here, and how having ten black belts qualifies one under WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In all martial arts and similar activity, black belts are held to high honor. Anyone with 10 of them is notable.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Find the bit of WP:BIO that says that or similar. It allows for people who have won important/prestigious awards; you're making the assumption that the school who awarded it is notable. Given that nobody knows anything about it, it's safe to assume that it isn't. Ironholds (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding. I never said anything about the school being notable. I said that the important/prestigious black belts are notable.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But one can call any award a black belt. If the school is not licensed/important, and is self-run, there is no evidence to show that the black belts are a particularly difficult achievement. Even if they are, thousands of people gain black belts. They are not prestigious awards, and are not covered by WP:BIO. The importance of the school is relevant, since it is linked to how distinguished an award is. If the school is the greatest and most difficult martial arts school in the world, a black belt is more prestigious than if it's Lucky Dragon Karate, which meets once a week above a launderette. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * but he has not won only 1 or 2, he has one TEN! Ten worldwide recognized awards of honor. Anyone in the martial arts knows the high significance of a black belt. Someone with many of them is a high honorable. Meaning, notability!--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But again, who awarded the black belts! If it's a recognised awarding body, fine. If it's a disreputable institution, not fine. You seem to be missing the point of my line of argument somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are actually missing my point. Be it from a school that is not well-known or the most well-known school in the world, a black belt is a black belt. It is an award of honor no matter who awards it. Anyone with many honorable black belts is notable. end of discussion.--NiceHotShower (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because "black belt" is subjective. If they are being awarded based on a curriculum or exam system devised by some hack and not supported by any certified organisation, how can you say multiple wins of this "black belt" constitutes notability? But on your head be it. I'd suggest getting a better knowledge of how WP:N and the surrounding guidelines work before contributing to AfDs in the future. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was about to suggest that to you. So what are you waiting for Ironholds? You can start reading up on policies now. I can give you a quiz on Wikipedia policies at the end of the week and if your knowledge has improved I'll give you a barnstar. How about it?--NiceHotShower (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike that tone. Your reasoning here is at best ignorant of why we are an encyclopedia. Ok he won ten black belts, that still doesn't make the article pass WP:BIO, and unless you can show how it does, I suggest you stop arguing for this article's inclusion. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr ... a mere black belt is not notable in the martial arts world; pretty much anyone who's reasonably fit and dedicated earns one in a few years. To quote from the black belt article, "In contrast to the "black belt as master" stereotype, a black belt commonly indicates the wearer is competent in a style's basic technique and principles ... The shodan black belt is not the end of training but rather as a beginning to advanced learning: the individual now "knows how to walk" and may thus begin the "journey". As a 'black belt' is commonly viewed as conferring some status, achieving one has been used as a marketing 'gimmick', for example a guarantee of being awarded one within a specific period or if a specific amount is paid."  Beyond that, there's no evidence that this kid's claim of ten black belts is actually true.  A kid earning ten black belts before he's 18?  I think it's bullshit myself.   RGTraynor  01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Since the discussion has turned to notability guidelines, it is worth noting that the article's subject currently does not meet any of the five WPMA notability guidelines for martial artists: (1) subject of an independent article/documentary; (2) founder of a notable style; (3) Olympic medallist; (4) finalist in another significant event (note that this specifically excludes internal school events, which all of the subject's events appear to be); and (5) author of significant books on his style. The WPMA notability guidelines do not have any point based on rank. Even if the article had reliable sources to support its current content, it would still fail to meet these guidelines. Janggeom (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This guy does not appear to be notable either as an actor or as a martial artist. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * 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.