Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Cheng-kuan (2nd nomination)

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. If there had been a decent deletion nomination provided, I might close this discussion as No consensus but as it is, we just have arguments for a Procedural Keep. Please do not bring this article back to AFD before 6 months have passed and try having a more thorough deletion rationale based on policy. But I don't see this discussion warranting a third relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Cheng-kuan

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources to support notability Stvbastian (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Taiwan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous AfD appearance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly on procedural grounds, the first AfD was only 3 months ago done by the same nom with the exact same rationale, which was closed as keep. Jumpytoo Talk 20:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AFD did not yield a solid consensus and was not a good subject for a non-admin closure. The first keep opinion lacked a valid rationale, then there were one delete and one keep opinion. On the other hand, the nomination above is not solid either - only five words. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's essentially no indication either way whether this subject is notable on the basis of the present constributions - comment on sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Seen he is ranked reasonably [[1]] other sources I found was just statistics, would love to keep if sources are found 182.2.164.95 (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Procedural Keep As per Jumpytoo, this article was nominated the first time less than 6 months ago, using the same rationale, and closed as Keep. There are rules surrounding multiple nominations within too short a time for a reason. For that reason alone, this should be an easy procedural keep. On top of that, and the reason the first nomination was also closed as a keep, Chen easily meets WP:NBAD as he has not just podiumed, but in fact won, a Super100 level tournament. Finally, even if none of the above were true, a search using his Chinese name throws up numerous sources - two of which I added to the article, just to start, but there are more out there where that came from. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2025 (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.