Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Ng


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing result to no consensus per discussion on my talk page, especially the sources and. Inability to read a language is not a valid reason to deny a source. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Philip Ng

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE. He also doesn't appear to meet the notability standards for actors and no reliable sources are referenced.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I see lots of content on the web. E.g., this, this, this, this, this and this.
 * With one exception, those articles are just a list of movies he's appeared in or about Linda Chung (his long-time girl friend). Notability is not inherited.Mdtemp (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

— Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).
 * Keep Content on the web in regards to his body of work as a martial arts actor and action director can easily be found. Hong Kong media tends to focus on gossip and personal relationships among their artistes so  articles regarding his rumored relationship would naturally appear more often in searches.  Notability should not be inherited but it often is, but in his case if he was not notable in his field, the Hong Kong press would not give him any coverage regardless of who he is dating or not dating.  . E.g., this, this, this, this.
 * The problem is that none of these show independent coverage from a reliable source. I'll wait to see if better sources are added before voting. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither the article nor the sources mentioned by the keep voters provide the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they do WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Each article listed addresses him (the topic) directly and in detail. i.e. this this, this,this,this,this,this,this All reliable independent and third party sources reporting directly about him. A simple search on Google or any other search engine will bring up many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources mentioned earlier do not show significant independent coverage from reliable sources. As for this bunch of sources you just mentioned that are in Chinese, my translate program doesn't do much with these.  The ones I got didn't meet the necessary standards and the others I can't evaluate.  As stated in WP:V, I would like to see some independent translations of the material to show it's not just more of the same type coverage you've been using (i.e., sources that don't meet WP:GNG).  It's an English WP and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Astudent0 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Note that articles can be in any language. This subject meets all the criteria for Notability according to all the guidelines listed WP:GNG All the delete voters just state that the articles listed by the Keep voters are not reliable or independent without stating how they are so. While I have on more than one occasion stated criteria listed in the Wikipedia guidelines that all of the listed articles meet. And each article or video listed are from internationally recognized third party media organizations which a simple internet search can confirm, so not sure why we are going in circles debating clear evidence as a number of the listed articles are in English that is written or translated by the actual source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of this debate is notability of the subject matter, which over the course of this debate seems more like a subjective matter rather than an objective one, thus evolving guidelines are set by Wikipedia to maintain a certain status quo in articles being published. WP:N - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."  As each of the various media coverage sources listed by the Keep voters meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines and the fact that a simple internet query will show ample and easily accessible information about the subject strongly points to the subject notability in his field.  If fellow editors feel the article is poorly written or could be formatted better, please help improve it or offer insight on how. The debate now is Keeping or Deleting this article based on the subject's notability, which evidence has been brought forth by the Keep voters to assert clearly. While I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of all information, Wikipedia SHOULD list articles on subjects that a number of the public would like to find out more about (i.e. Notability).  For example, if I come across an article in Wikipedia on [this]  film, I enjoy the fact that I can find links to other independent entries on Wikipedia about the film's lead actors so I can learn more about them.  The subject of this debate meets the criteria for Notability set forth by this community, if anyone disagrees, please state why. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Others have stated why they believe he's not notable and you responded with a missive against a straw man argument. Claiming those articles "meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines" is false when sites like IMDB, chinesemovies.com, and his family's martial arts page clearly are not independent AND reliable.  (I don't know how reliable some of the others are, but I hope you see my point).   In addition, it's reasonable to claim that the articles on his girl friend that mention him are "passing mentions" and not "significant" coverage.  The last bunch of articles you mentioned are all in Chinese and my computer translation makes them a garbled mess that prevents me from figuring out what they're talking about.  Astudent0 is correct when he says the burden of proof is on you.  Right now I'm on the fence--I think he may well be notable, but I'm not yet seeing the sources that clearly show me that. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG (at least from what I can read).Jakejr (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I have been asking to see better sources for several weeks because I couldn't find the coverage I felt is necessary to show he meets GNG, and none has been provided. I will reconsider if additional sources are provided. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2014 (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.