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. ✗plicit 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Chong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article looks WP:TOOSOON The player currently fails the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines having not yet appeared in a match at the level required. Not finding anything to to show he meets WP:GNG either. Josey Wales ^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales ^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales ^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The player has done an interview with The Sun, one of the largest papers in the UK, this is enough of a notable source to prove he's a person of note. Kobe Chong is a large figure in Malaysia, having a large fanbase and his Social Media following reflective of this. Other Wikipedia editors have made links to Peterborough's Wikipedia where he features on there, again showing he's of note.

Please end discussion as there's enough proof to show he warrants an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benpring112 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Sun is an unreliable source. Fanbase doesn't matter and linking to "Peterborough's wikipedia" means nothing. --Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draftspace he fails WP:GNG, as there's not enough sources about him (interview with The Sun is useless, as The Sun is a depreciated, unreliable source). Draftspace seems sensible, as he may well make a professional appearance in the next few months. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to delete as per Struway2's comments below. Better to start from scratch if there's copyvios involved here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with draftspace. Thanks all for feedback Benpring112 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify A case of WP:TOOSOON. The article can be moved to mainspace when GNG or NFOOTY is met. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject does have a Peterborough squad number, so might make a debut in the foreseeable future, so I wouldn't normally oppose draftifying. However, in this case the content is not only attributed to the deprecated source – see WP:THESUN, which says There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject, much of it is copy-pasted from that source and therefore a copyright violation. Once that content is removed, there's very little left, and the creator might do better starting again either in draftspace or in their own sandbox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Struway makes an excellent point above and I completely agree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to draftspace for now for same reasons as above comments Zanoni (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2022 (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.