Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Kwan

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 Delete ^demon[omg plz] 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelvin Kwan

Kelvin Kwan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. YechielMan 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep is signed to a major label in Hong Kong (正東唱片); non-trivially covered in plenty of newspapers even just in the last couple of weeks (gnews search: [1]). cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per cab. He's been signed to a major label and has appeared in major newspapers. Clearly notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." No. 671 google hits, including a Harvard Medical School student with the same name. --FateClub 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment try searching in Chinese. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The absence of those quoted criteria are not cause to delete. Instead, their presence is stated cause not to delete. If we err, err on the side of caution. In any case, if there are two moderately noteworthy persons with that name, I see more cause for the article, to clarify the distinction. And trust me on this, English-language Google is not the arbiter of notable worth. With that attitude, we might as well shut down all of Wiki & just let people Google. Ventifax 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All of the references are in a foreign language of some sort; this suggests that the subject is not notable in the English=speaking world, and therefore not appropriate to the English-language wikipedia. Notable pop culture subjects in foreign language cultures do not have a place in en-wiki, unless they also establish notability in English language countries. Google hits ARE a good indicator of notability, especially for living people, and events which have occurred in the last 5 years. Jerry 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of the Anglosphere. The article meets WP:ATT and, having multiple non-trivial instances of independent coverage, meets WP:N. Plenty of notable things don't get written about in English media, or Russian media, or Chinese media; that doesn't mean the articles on them should be deleted from enwiki, ruwiki, or zhwiki. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I see what Jerry is saying, but I'm leery of telling wikipedia's readers that they can only read about a Chinese subject in Chinese. Certainly non-English wikis have sections on English-speaking literary figures; a quick search turns up pages on John Wyclif (who's known solely for translating the Bible into English, but is a great enough historical figure), John Towner Williams (who's admittedly musical & interlinguistic in appeal), & the black metal band Cradle of Filth (!!!) in both Slovak & Slovene (2 low-population languages picked arbitrarily); as well as extensive Slovak pages on all the literary Brontë family. Now this guy's no John Williams, let alone John Wyclif, but he is apparently a minor celebrity in Hong Kong, a major city/quasi-state of cultural interest far beyond China (& for that matter, more or less in the Anglosphere). If it turns into vanity or nonsense, we can prune it down to a nice inoffensive stub; but I don't think it needs to be excluded for being non-Anglo, per se. Ventifax 04:05, 2 April 2007 (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.