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. Consensus that article passes WP:SIGCOV based on Chinese languages sources discussed during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talkcontribs) 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Rong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage for fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 11:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mx. Granger I'm sorry, but my computer security settings block the first and third of your references. Of the other two, one is promoting an upcoming OneFC fight card in Shanghai in 2019 and the other is highlighting the best Chinese fighter performances in the 2019 OneFC events in Beijing and Shanghai. Do you have some better examples of significant coverage? That's important because he clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed out my vote. While I'm not convinced by the sources given, the fact that I'm unable to access all of them means the coverage may be better than I can see. Papaursa (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow time for additional input regarding sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 28 September 2021 (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.