Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Pang


 * 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. News coverage is primarily of the "human-interest" type, covering the subject's performance at school and their school projects, etc. If there was more coverage establishing the website as notable, I might vote to keep - but the coverage that is cited does not qualify as "in-depth" or "significant". With the only !voter having withdrawn their vote (I'm counting them as neutral, as they struck their "keep" vote without placing a new one), and the debate having already been relisted once, the consensus here is to delete. ST47 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Tristan Pang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable by WP standards. Subject is credited as a 'child prodigy' by a number of non-authoritative sources, including websites (some of which are the subject's own), non-specialist journalism, YouTube, etc. WP article child prodigy gives the well-sourced definition "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer." Nothing in this article gives any example which would warrant this description. There are no serious assessments by secondary sources. Subject is now 18: most of the things mentioned in the article relate to his teens and nearly all to above age 10. Article has had a 'close connection' warning for over a year and large recent additions come from an IP source. The article reads like a self-promotion - not a record of notable achievements (see WP:COI). -- Smerus (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep . I am happy that he has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" WP:BIO. Many are youtube clips of news reports. No contest on some of the page being a vanity project. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * You don't, I think, address the issue of WP:Notability. He is mentioned in the lead as a "child prodigy". He does not seem conform to WP's definition of child prodigy and none of the sources in the article seem to meet WP:RSPRIMARY; they therefore give no reason to suppose that he meets this definition.--Smerus (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If he is or is not a child prodigy is none of my business, if he is called such in the reliable secondary sources then he is one on Wikipedia. If he is not then edit the page. I do not understand why you care if he is a child prodigy or not (WP:CONTN), please direct me to the right part of a Wikipedia deletion policy.


 * Some of the refs on the page are not reliable secondary sources, some are. There is even a section on media coverage on the page (one which should be deleted, but is quite useful for this discussion). I would say is good for example, why do you think it is not? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - it is indeed a secondary source, but all it supports is the claim that he got a good exam result at age nine for an exam aimed at 11 year olds. This is not exactly WP:NOTABLE. The article is predicated on the assertion in its lead that Pang is a child prodigy, a status defined by the WP article of that name as " a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." No reliable secondary source in the article supports that.--Smerus (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Smerus, is this the section of WP:Notable you think it fails? ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.” If not which one? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)).
 * See Notability (people). "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." I don't believe the subject sufficiently meets any of these criteria.--Smerus (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to come around Smerus, have removed vote. I see it as border line, so will leave it for someone else to "vote". (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2019 (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.