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 speedy keep. I asked MuZemike for a checkuser check, given that history seemed to be repeating itself. Based upon what xe has said, I'm closing this as a bad faith discussion started by a banned user, with some fairly obvious attempts to stack the nonexistent ballot box by other accounts. History was indeed repeating itself.

Egg Centric and Sergecross73, you appear to have good faith opinions, but the effect of a banned user mucking about has drowned them out. Bear in mind that you don't need an AFD discussion for a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hoang[edit]

Ken Hoang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article fails notability by my standards. In light of other survivor contestants getting nominated and this article's AFD history, I am nominating this one for deletion since it's not likely his other accomplishments would turn heads. I am suggesting we redirect this to Survivor: Gabon. --CobraGlass (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above and long AFD history. 208.54.37.179 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per long AFD history. This article has had 3 keep and 1 no consensus decisions, with 1 keep predating his appearance on Survivor. His appearance on Survivor would grant additional notability not reduce it. The argument "in light of other survivor contestants getting nominated" smacks of a WP:POINT violation and the article's AfD history should in no way count against it, particularly when 3 of them were full of sock puppetry and SPA as noted by the closing admin. Eastshire (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note The nominating account, in the grand tradition of AfD for this article, seems to be a SPA. Eastshire (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let's not start attacking the nominator please. The article was nominated 4 times before and therefore not everyone agrees this person deserves his own article. 208.54.36.165 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 3 of those were determined by an admin to be either in bad faith or subverted by SPA, it's notable that the nominator appears to be a single purpose account. And the number of prior nominations would seem to me to weight towards keep rather than allowing continued forum shopping by renomination Eastshire (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Nothing wrong with simply pointing out it's an SPA. That's just a fact, not an attack. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care? Wikipedia is just like any other public site so anyone can put up their opionion, just like you. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst people are welcome to their opinion, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We have policies and guidelines for how people should behave, such as civility towards others. SPAs can often be observed to be associated with behaviour which breach these guidelines and cause disruption and disputes, hence it is not considered unreasonable (and certainly not an attack) to point out someone appears to be an SPA, something which enable others to take that into consideration when framing their debate and considering how to evaluate the general consensus. It is also generally agreed that the fact someone is an SPA should not be used to prejudice their arguments, if valid, and their points are given equal merit in spite of the label. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know there are guidelines. Still the fact that this article has seen a number of nominations shows we need to rethink the notibility of this article. I simply don't see any off the chart accomplishments as far as I'm concerned. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and lay off this article. Continuous re-nominations of same hated article in order to achieve a different desired result are pathetic. Turqoise127 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as no evidence presented or established. Feel that to warrant a fifth AfD attempt there really needs to be a good reason to think why the consensus is likely to change. We do not delete articles because they do not meet one person's subjective standards, which is what the nominator's argument appears to be. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there nothing wrong the nominating an article if someone feels it should be deleted

Please do not delete the comments of others, as you just did to mine and familiarise yourself with WP:Deletion Policy and WP:Notability. The fact something fails notability to a single person's subjective standard is not considered legitimate grounds for deletion. I should also note that I have not suggested the nomination was illegitimate and to pretend I did is a straw man argument.-Rushyo ^Talk 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Looking at the previous AFDs proponents of this article have not stated why this person is notabile to begin with. Participating in a Reality TV show doesn't grant notability. Nuff said. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I notice a recurring theme is that people feel that because there have already been various AfDs this adds weight to changing the status quo of the article. It does not, it in fact shows that despite there being legitimate reasons why people would think it might be deleted, it is the consensus up until this point that it not be deleted and that consensus is not likely to change. If you believe it should be deleted, you need to present evidence.-Rushyo ^Talk 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For starters, Natalie White was redirected to Survivor: Samoa even though she was the winner. Simply put, playing a reality TV series doesn't make a person notable. Even the gaming accomplishments hardly make this person a household name. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a household name isn't a requirement for notability according to any Wikipedia policy. It's merely a personal subjective measure. The guidelines for notability state that the general threshold for inclusion is 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. You need to link your arguments to Wikipedia policy and objective facts. Also please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why drawing comparisons to other articles tends not to be a persuasive argument. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier, Ken Hoang passed an AfD prior to being on Survivor. The current consensus is that he is notable without regard to being on Survivor. Being on Survivor does not make him less notable than he was previously. Eastshire (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The next thing you know, we'll be writing articles about our next door neighbor who spent his life playing video games. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) (Sock account)[reply]

This argument (without evidence to back it up) represents a slippery slope logical fallacy. -Rushyo ^Talk 10:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, UsedBeen20 is likely to be the same IP as 209.117.69.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as per their contributions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) A bit iffy (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough reliable sources to confer notability. Nothing has changed since the last 4 stacked SPA nominations. - hahnchen 11:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Consensus can change, so rather than arguing over his past AFD's, we should discuss why he passes the WP:GNG now. My concern is, I'm looking through these sources, and a lot of them are either not reliable, or just link to main pages of websites. (At least one of the CBS and MLG sources just go to their main page, not mentioning Ken at all.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume this has come in light of other articles of survivor contestants being deemed non-notable. The winner of Survivor: South Pacific (Sophie Clarke) got redirected by consensus so this person really is no different. The keep voters of this article might have voted keep, and it would be hard to dispute her notability. I serously doubt his gaming stuff is notable to begin with. The first nomination was closed only after a few days and a few votes, so it's hard to support a keep with that. UsedBeen20 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through and fix up dead links for MLG, at least. Both of those respective web sites have changed completely since those refs were added. -Rushyo ^Talk 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as no policy based rationale have been given by either the nominator nor other editor !voting to delete. It would appear that the quantity and quality of the sources already existing in the article clearly surpasses the requirements for inclusion. I fail to see the point of the nomination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note The nominator of this AfD is a  Confirmed sock puppet of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, without linking any accounts to IPs, I can also confirm that all the IPs are engaged in double-!voting in this AfD. --MuZemike 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Sergecross73, hardly convinced by gaming info and keep comments. 107.16.78.114 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — 107.16.78.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect - yeah, the support of sockpuppet city here isn't encouraging. But if survior contestants don't necessarily deserve their own article, and he seems to have been a minor one at best, let's have a look at the other thingys... yeah there have been a few AfDs, but the most recent ones have suffered from the same sockpuppet issues and have hardly had discussion, so disregard 'em. Where meaningful AfD discussions were had back in 2009 the surviror stuff was being taken by other editors to be more important, as back then the other contestants did have articles from what I can see. I believe an admin could look at the previous arguments in context and come to a consensus to delete/redirect, put it that way. Anyway, this guy has averaged $10k a year in winnings from his computer gaming activities. Put bluntly, not very impressive, there are illiterate Chinese teenagers making more than that gold mining in WoW. (Technically it probably meets GNG but this is a BLP remember) Egg Centric 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of money won isn't a valid criteria; WP:Significant coverage is :) Besides, I suspect the large majority of sports people who meet WP:N have barely won anything, nevermind dominating a particular field of their sport for many years. I'm unfamiliar as to how WP:BLP would have a significant impact on the WP:GNG in this instance. Could you elaborate? -Rushyo ^Talk 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF - you can think of that (I certainly do) as increasing bias towards removal. Put bluntly this guy is a total non entity atm, and (while this is not the only reason I am voting this way) I can't put it out of my head that the sock activity around this article is cause he wants rid of it himself. Egg Centric 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're relying on the argument of a sport's #1, with large amounts of citable third-party coverage, being a total non entity? As I've said, most sports players of note don't even win anything, let alone pretty much every tournament they enter. I suspect your issue is with Esports and not this person at all. Am I wrong? I've said it above but I'll say it again: Being a household name isn't a requirement for notability according to any Wikipedia policy. It's merely a personal subjective measure. The guidelines for notability state that the general threshold for inclusion is 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. This has been met. Additionally, your WP:NPF citation actually contradicts your argument, it clearly states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known". This argument is only applicable after you already accept that he is notable enough for an entry, not to mention WP:BLP is about protecting against contentious material, which this AfD is not about. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your idea that these socks are his personal crusade to eliminate his own article falls over when you note the socks have been attacking other Survivor-related articles and other sports' AfDs. It's nothing specific to this fellow at all. Based on my interactions with them it seems far more likely they just don't take Survivor and UFC seriously and fervently believe that means they're not eligible for inclusion. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with e-sports as such, but I would also have an issue with having anyone who can win any organised tourney for any game having an article (because there are tens of thousands of games; I was once the best player of a semi-obscure flight simulator and have also received press covereage for other things, but I certainly ain't notable) - therefore my criteria for judging which e-sports matter, for want of having a better one (and this is mostly hypothetical because it's not as if I've contributed to hundreds of e-sports AfDs, or even two as far as I can remember) is going to be the prize money. It may be that I'm looking for too much prize money of course...

Having said that if the socks are attacking articles indiscriminately, something I hadn't realised, then I am far happier with the article staying up, and if indeed I am the only non-sock on this I suppose I don't mind it being speedy'd - not because I don't think my arguement has any merit at all, but because a) it doesn't look like it'll win anyway and b) so many respected editors think otherwise I'm probably missing even more than I've already realised I'm missing! Egg Centric 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Aside from the redirect above me the others are from sock accounts, based on the reliable sources present it does meet WP:GNG and has WP:Significant coverage as stated above. I see no reason to delete this well sourced article, it does pass WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the obvious reasons, detailed above, or perhaps speedy keep in light of the circumstances surrounding the nom: 21:02, 19 May 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked CobraGlass (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Don't Feed the Zords). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin The same sock account had also been the one who requested deletion for this article every time since the first AfD proposal (2nd AfD - Current one) Almost every time the discussion was closed as keep, if this article is to be kept is there a way to protect it against future AfDs by the sock? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nothing screams bad faith like a sockmaster not getting his way the first time. Ishdarian 02:37, 21 May 2012 (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.