Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Wong

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 keep. –MuZemike 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Wong

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

Does not appear to be notable: (1) He has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) He does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and (3) he has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Actually does appear to meet WP:ENT, as films notable to Hong Kong are notable enough for en.Wikipedia. However the article needs sourcing. Any Hong Kong Wikipedians available? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it appears that non of these roles are featured, so does this still qualify as WP:ENT?Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will hope for input from Hong Kong Wikiepdians far more likley to find the Hong Kong sources showing notability for these Hong Kong films and this Hong Kong actor. English language coverage for non-Western individuals is always problematic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. This article from the World Journal, this article from Xinhua News Agency, and this article from China Central Television provide significant coverage about Jacky Wong / 王樹熹 (also nicknamed Jacky仔). Notability per WP:GNG is met. Cunard (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - most of the articles I've seen are about Wong's conflict with Mung and Au-yeung. In the world journal ref and the rest of the sources I've read, Wong only plays a 'cameo' role. For example, in one article Wong was mentioned because his brother was used as an example in the 2006 secondary school allocation results. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources here (archived link) better? Specifically, this, this, and this. Wong is the centerpiece of the article which goes beyond the conflict between him and Mung/Au-yeung. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, the first one's Wong's official blog, and the rest are error messages. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog has scans of a three-page article. The links to the three pages worked earlier but have now become error messages. Here are the links again (this time using the durable WebCite): 1, 2, and 3. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the article says nothing of notability as far as I can tell (the words of page 2 are really blurry). It's mainly about how Wong entered a band-one EMI school. A lot of people enter band-one EMI schools every year, so this does not establish notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 2 provides in-depth biographical information about Wong. That a third-party publication chose to write a featured story about his personal life—how his mother ensured that he studied hard, did well in his classes, and was able to get into his chosen secondary school—indicates that Wong is notable.
It is true that many people enter band-one EMI schools every year. But how many of these people are written about by the media? Very few, I would predict. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Many papers in HK (paricularly the Sing Tao Daily) feature reports about students' experiences all the time. These students are usually not notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article, in conjunction with the rest of the sources, is enough to push Jacky Wong over the requirements of WP:GNG. We'll have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- With apparently only non-English language sources availabe , it is difficult to assess Wong's notability. Should the article be deleted from the English-language Wiki since these sources are not verifiable?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and offered by User:Cunard. While yes, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available, in the lack of available English sources, non-English are acceptable. An unfortunate systemic bias exists, and some editors treat WP:UNKNOWNHERE as if it were a guideline or policy. It is not. We should all strive to address systemic bias whenever possible... for the ultimate benefit of the project itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is a systematic bias as it becomes difficult to verify sources if they are in a language different from that of the Wiki itself. How can one confirm the statements if one cannot read the cited source?Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Chinese Wikipedians on en.wikipedia (including me). Kayau Voting IS evil 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the cited sources and verify their information. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure that you are a honorable and trustworthy editor (no sarcasm intended) but that still does not mean that a non-Chineese reader can verify the citations for themselves. Isn't the point of citing sources is for the reader to investigate and verify the claims themselves instead of relying on third-parties to do it for them?Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia recognizes this concern, and DOES allow non-English sources in such cases where English sources are unavailable... specially for someone with an assertion of non-English notability. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Non-English sources, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Biographies And for non-Chinese-reading Wikipedians, a translation may be requested and included in the article... usually in a "notes" section. Translations ARE allowable, and follow both policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (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.