Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lê Quang Khải
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Vietnam at the 1980 Summer Olympics as a broadly supported ATD. Owen×ばつ ☎ 11:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lê Quang Khải (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )
Declined prod. The added source [1] whilst third party is only a 1 line mention and is not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NOLY. A search of Vietnamese press yields namesakes. Also NEXIST can't be used to argue for keep if no significant coverage or sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep, I think there's a possibility the namesake is the same person in this case, but regardless, the nominator's assertion about WP:NEXIST isn't stated anywhere in the policy. The only thing that's relevant is, do sources exist? Seeing that they exist for every other Olympic 1500 m runner without exception, there's a high likelihood. Keeping the page as a stub until adequate sourcing can be found is the best outcome because newer editors find it easier to edit a stub than restore a redirect. --Habst (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Where are the sources to establish notability? You have been told several times in several AfDs that you need sources. Keeping it as a stub for new editors is one of the weakest reasons I've heard for keeping in my 17 odd years on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The sources are in Vitenamese sports media of the 1980s. As someone who has spent just as long on Wikipedia, your reasoning for why that's a "weak reason" isn't backed up by policy or community consensus. I have respect for your contributions, so please address the concern directly. --Habst (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Where are the sources to establish notability? You have been told several times in several AfDs that you need sources. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Athlete articles are kept when there is consensus of sufficient sources which is lacking in this case. Articles are deleted or redirected when there are insufficient sources. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @LibStar, while that's generally true it's not a hard and fast rule. NEXIST exists for this exact reason. If you don't think the NEXIST rationale is persuasive, then dispute that on its merits instead of making broad and sweeping arguments. --Habst (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- As an admin said "a nomination cannot be procedurally closed simply because the nominator didn't check for sources in a language with which they are unfamiliar. Contrarily, WP:NEXIST clearly tells us, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." LibStar (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The quote you are posting says that in some cases, merely asserting sources exist can be persuasive (seldom) in an AfD. That's actually kind of incredible to me and I wouldn't even go that far, I think that NEXIST rationale should at least be provided based on WP:V content as in this example. Either way, please link the quote whenever you're quoting someone so the context can be read. --Habst (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Another admin said Invoking N:EXIST without some evidence that sourcing has been (potentially) identified is not a path to a Keep, exact same context of an AfD for a athlete where no significant coverage has been provided. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Admins have a wide range of views and WP:NEXIST specifically says that editors should consider the
"possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article"
. I agree it should be seldom used, but I think this case is exceptional. If you don't think the article should be kept, then you should try to dispute the NEXIST rationale. --Habst (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]- The article shouldn't exist because reliable indepth sources cannot be find. Your NEXIST free pass argument has been questioned and disregarded several times. I'm yet to see a closing admin give a keep decision based on it LibStar (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @LibStar, would you then also advocate deleting the hundreds or thousands of articles relying only on permanent dead links? What if the dead links were the only available references for the article and there's nothing else on the web?
- WP:NEXIST is clear on this, that the possibility of notability-indicating sources existing can, in exceptional cases, be persuasive. You're free to contest my rationale for that, or say this case isn't exceptional enough, but the principle is a valid one. --Habst (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Every article should be considered on its merits. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- OK, so then what is your opinion on NEXIST for this article on its merits, without making a sweeping "no sources" argument that you just agreed would be inappropriate without care for individual cases? --Habst (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- You use NEXIST in every sweeping instance you cant find sources. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- OK, so then what is your opinion on NEXIST for this article on its merits, without making a sweeping "no sources" argument that you just agreed would be inappropriate without care for individual cases? --Habst (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Every article should be considered on its merits. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The article shouldn't exist because reliable indepth sources cannot be find. Your NEXIST free pass argument has been questioned and disregarded several times. I'm yet to see a closing admin give a keep decision based on it LibStar (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Admins have a wide range of views and WP:NEXIST specifically says that editors should consider the
- Another admin said Invoking N:EXIST without some evidence that sourcing has been (potentially) identified is not a path to a Keep, exact same context of an AfD for a athlete where no significant coverage has been provided. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The quote you are posting says that in some cases, merely asserting sources exist can be persuasive (seldom) in an AfD. That's actually kind of incredible to me and I wouldn't even go that far, I think that NEXIST rationale should at least be provided based on WP:V content as in this example. Either way, please link the quote whenever you're quoting someone so the context can be read. --Habst (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- As an admin said "a nomination cannot be procedurally closed simply because the nominator didn't check for sources in a language with which they are unfamiliar. Contrarily, WP:NEXIST clearly tells us, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." LibStar (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @LibStar, while that's generally true it's not a hard and fast rule. NEXIST exists for this exact reason. If you don't think the NEXIST rationale is persuasive, then dispute that on its merits instead of making broad and sweeping arguments. --Habst (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Athlete articles are kept when there is consensus of sufficient sources which is lacking in this case. Articles are deleted or redirected when there are insufficient sources. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Where are the sources to establish notability? You have been told several times in several AfDs that you need sources. LibStar (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- The sources are in Vitenamese sports media of the 1980s. As someone who has spent just as long on Wikipedia, your reasoning for why that's a "weak reason" isn't backed up by policy or community consensus. I have respect for your contributions, so please address the concern directly. --Habst (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Where are the sources to establish notability? You have been told several times in several AfDs that you need sources. Keeping it as a stub for new editors is one of the weakest reasons I've heard for keeping in my 17 odd years on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delete or Redirect, no significant coverage - and no trace of other successes in athletics. Geschichte (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Keep or Redirect to Vietnam at the 1980 Summer Olympics. I agree that there was likely SIGCOV in Vietnamese in the 1970s and 1980s. Finding it without access to sources from that time is a near impossibility. I have tried doing a Google search for "Lê Quang Khải" Olympic - I'm afraid that I don't have time to check and translate all the results in a language I don't know at all for amount of coverage, reliability, etc. At least he is named in the 'Vietnam at the 1980 Summer Olympics' article, so anyone who has access to SIGCOV could create a new article from there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Wikipedia can only publish things that are possible to find. Everything else has to wait, and it does not detract from Wikipedia that it does wait. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Geschichte, actually, there are nearly 200,000 Wikipedia articles written using unrecoverable dead links or out-of-print physical media as sources, and probably hundreds of articles relying only on those types of sources. Wikipedia doesn't only publish things that are possible to find. --Habst (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Not similar, not relevant Geschichte (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Geschichte, actually, there are nearly 200,000 Wikipedia articles written using unrecoverable dead links or out-of-print physical media as sources, and probably hundreds of articles relying only on those types of sources. Wikipedia doesn't only publish things that are possible to find. --Habst (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Wikipedia can only publish things that are possible to find. Everything else has to wait, and it does not detract from Wikipedia that it does wait. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Redirect. There is probably coverage somewhere, but we haven't found it yet – a Vietnamese friend helped me do a web search for the subject's name and 'Olympics' in Vietnamese, to no avail. SPORTCRIT clearly states that
All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.
Redirecting preserves history, so until such sigcov is found, it is the best solution. Toadspike [Talk] 10:17, 14 March 2025 (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.