Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Lok Leung

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. The best policy-based arguments below are for delete, notably JoelleJay's. Daniel (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Lok Leung

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been updated with additional information and sourcing since the AfD. Person in question reached the second round of the PDC World Championship and received decent coverage of their matches, particularly after beating a highly-rated player in their first game. Additionally, nom is to be biased against most darts articles on the Wiki. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 21:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources are significant coverage, merely routine reporting. Also, your accusations of a biased nomination have no basis in reality and do not assume good faith. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully agree with 🇮🇪 TheChrisD. The article is about a relevant player and contains enough sources, there is not a single compelling reason to delete it. The only reason for the nomination is already mentioned - the bias of the nominator, whose targeted destruction of darts articles should be paid attention to. Penepi (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of the sources are significant coverage, merely routine reporting. Also, your accusations of a biased nomination have no basis in reality and do not assume good faith. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~All I see is your subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Penepi (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate which of the 12 sources in the article, or even how many of them, amount to significant coverage? By my count one of the 12 sources is exclusively about Leung, and it's nine sentences long. Hardly "significant coverage" now is it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not happy with the quality of the sources, why don't you go and find better ones? Because it would be too difficult? Is it easier to delete the article completely? Despite the fact that the player in question is obviously relevant? Such lazy behavior does not help make Wikipedia a better source of information; exactly the opposite. Penepi (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is up for deletion because the sources don't exist and the person clearly fails GNG. If you can find the sources, please do! Why are you being so pass-aggro! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~It was 10, but go off about your lack of unconscious bias. BRZ8 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Let's all assume good faith all around. It would be helpful to see some policy-based arguments and a review of the content addition since this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's my assessment of the sources in the article:

1: stats

. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 (PDC): non-independent

. 3: name in a draw

. 5: passing mention in routine event recap

. 8: passing mention in routine tournament recap

. 10: passing mentions in routine tournament recap

. 11 passing mention in routine tournament recap

. 12: dartsnews routine tournament recap + press conference statements from Leung

.
Also, dartsnews.com seems like a marginal source -- it's got two editors/writers, the head editor also runs several other disparate sports blogs/YT channels and only graduated with his BA in summer 2021. You can contact them via dartsnews02@gmail.com... Not exactly the level of professional journalism expected for BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me laugh. Really. I don't know if you're just trolling, but, dear lady, please stick to your molecular biology and don't comment on things you have literally no clue about. Let me tell you a huge secret - darts is not a science; "passing mention in routine tournament recap". And what would you expect? A website dedicated to his one match analyzing it in a scientific manner? Also mentioning PDC source as non-independent. Extremely bizarre. This is sports and this is how sports news work. In this context I dare to borrow the rational argumentation of my fellow colleague: this is not a scientific article where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Hugo won his WC debut 3–2 against GVV. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. With this brilliant and absolutely not rigid approach, you would have to delete not only 95% of articles about darts players but about athletes in general. Penepi (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of darts players that will get more than a "passing mention in routine tournament recap". If passing mentions are the only coverage that Man Lok Leung gets then he isn't yet notable. "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." is what WP:SPORTBASIC says is the bare minimum and even that is not a guarantee of being kept as the clear preference stated in the same guideline is for multiple such sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also in this article there are sources which are not just a "passing mention in routine tournament recap". Penepi (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ u. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, you've already proven enough that you're really just a troll and you vent your frustration on darts articles. Penepi (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSPORT, WP:NOT, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:GNG. I see you've only !voted in 5 AfDs, so please also take a look through a few dozen delete-outcome athlete AfDs to familiarize yourself with the application of our PAGs in this area.

Passing mentions and discussion in routine event recaps are explicitly discounted from SIGCOV. The Professional Darts Corporation is a governing sports bod[y] and thus is not independent; its interest in a subject does not reflect the interest of the world at large, and it has a vested interest in promoting its participants. We had a global referendum last year that determined our athlete notability guidelines were severely problematic as-is and introduced several measures to ensure article subjects actually met GNG. We've since deleted thousands of athlete bios because yes, many of them are not sufficiently covered by independent, secondary sources in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do you really have nothing better to do? BRZ8 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)~~Blocked via DUCK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG with no sigcov of him. I searched with his Chinese name and couldn't find any sigcov there either. Dougal18 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage about him is just passing mentions (i.e. him being listed in tournament schedules), not significant coverage. As such, he does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Note that competing in the 2024 PDC World Darts Championship is not a reason to keep unless he passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a PDC WC participant, who advanced to second round, is definitely notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norden1990, by what notability criterion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.