Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phal Sophorn

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phal Sophorn

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

Unsourced BLP about a fighter who fails to meet WP:KICK or any other notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a source now, decent record. If we're going to have baseball players, might as well have this guy. -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't have all baseball players only those that are deemed notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE Longevitydude (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage that meets WP:GNG and there's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keepWP:kick is a guideline. This is a notable kickboxer and we must avoid Systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, KICK is a guideline. And BIAS is an essay. In the hierarchy, a guideline is more relevant than an essay, which is merely an opinion piece that some agree with. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you too! That is your opinion as well! CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not my opinion. Policies are the top of the hierarchy. They trump the guidelines and essays. Policies are "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and they're the result of extensive input by many, many editors. Guidelines are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Note the shift from "widely accepted" to "generally accepted", a lowered standard. Lastly are essays. The essay is "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". Note that it clearly states it isn't there to try to compete with the higher policies or guidelines. When I said a guideline is more relevant in the hierarchy, that was a factual statement, not merely my opinion. When I said that an essay is an opinion piece, that was a factual statement, not merely my opinion. Thus "that is your opinion as well" is, in fact, not correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: People don't meet the notability guidelines by being non-white and because there are baseball players. People meet the notability guidelines by satisfying the GNG or relevant SMGs. This fellow doesn't. Done deal. Ravenswing 07:16, 10 April 2015 (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.