Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kong Hye-ok

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hye-ok

Kong Hye-ok (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)

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the fact that someone is North Korean does not exempt them from having to meet the relevant notability guidelines, and a search suggests this person does not. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually sources will be needed. But there is no rush, and we can wait a few decades or centuries until North Korean media is available publicly. If this was a borderline player on Kaesong FC then I'd agree. But a player with this history - we all know that in almost every other country we'd have no problem finding references. To pretend otherwise ignores
WP:BIAS issues. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If there's no rush, then we can wait until said sources become available to create this article. I fail to see how not having an article on a North Korean soccer player will negatively impact anything in any way. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Nfitz:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has no proper sources and the subject has no significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - struggling to see the point in having an article on someone for whom no evidence of significant coverage exists. If such coverage is ever found, we can always restore it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 21 August 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.