Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Cheng (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. Notability has been established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Cheng

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

As per talk page OppieSG (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This page was nominated for deletion before and was kept partly due to a now banned sockpuppet. Once the puff has been trimmed, the subject is non-notable except as a Facebook commentator who makes controversial remarks in Singapore. Few reliable sources. OppieSG (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC) (extra !vote struck Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Subject’s last notable position with Elite Models was over 10 years ago. None of his companies thereafter are notable. He was an appointed legislator for only 21 months. Not a real politician OppieSG (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion until other issues are fixed - Like most pages related to Singapore politics and politicians, this one is an absolute mess, full of COI editors, IP editors who have only edited this page and the page itself was seemingly created with the sole purpose of self-promotion. However, since the article also contains some unsavory material about the subject matter, and given the widespread nature of editing paid by the ruling party of Singapore or its fanatical supporters and detractors, the nature of this nomination and some of those calling for it is somewhat dubious. Though I would most likely support deletion, with the current circumstances it seems unlikely to be able to have a balanced discussion based on WP policy without POV-pushing. I suggest closing the discussion, sorting this out with a lot of blocks (preferably extended far beyond this page, but that seems unlikely to happen) then revisiting this discussion once that's concluded. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In local context, the subject is notable only for controversial comments that die out quickly, from the sources, he doesn't get any international coverage.

On a side note, let's be realistic, there are fanatical supporters and detractors come in both flavors. Its not even a new thing, i.e. personally I saw cases of people canvassing outsiders to come into wikipedia to help in his/her editwar [[1]][[2]]. But let that distract from keeping articles neutral. Our role is not to write what is "right"/"truth", which may be subjective, but what can be "reliably sourced". Zhanzhao (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Per talk page" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a reason here. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently there is some misunderstanding about the Wikipedia concept of "notability". It does not refer to the importance of the person or his companies or career. Instead, it refers to how much coverage the person has received from independent publications considered "reliable sources" (which roughly means: journalistic publications or commercially produced books). The references to the article show numerous journalistic publications that have reported on Mr. Cheng, so that is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's "notability" criterion. For further information on the criterion, please see WP:PERSON. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that former members of a national or regional legislature qualify as notable, according to WP:POLITICIAN. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe a partial term as an appointed member really gets over the POLITICIAN hump; even that argument is marginal at best. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy stated at WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude appointed members or short-term members. It even includes members who were elected but who never served. Note also that the British House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are appointive bodies. -- Bistropha (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are few high quality refs with substantial discussion about him. There are lots of passing mentions, sure. Some of the lack is due to the impoverished state of the press in Singapore but some is due to the fact that he is a medium sized fish in the small pond of Singapore. If this article had a normal history I probably wouldn't vote at all. I am involved in this article because it has been subject to relentless promotional pressure for around ten years (see this piece of promotional garbage from 2007, and see this from Feb 2016), and I would be happy to see it gone. If the subject were very notable it would be worth the effort; since notability is marginal, it is not. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be disagreeing with your good-faith arguments, but the past poor quality of the article does not imply that the person fails to meet the Notability criterion. Does anyone have another reason to delete the article (based on Wikipedia criteria)? -- Bistropha (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent what I wrote here again. I did address N, and did so clearly. I will not reply further to you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misrepresented your statements here, please accept my apology; I hope everyone can Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Bistropha (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did; there is no "if" about it and AGF has nothing to do with it. Bad behavior is bad behavior Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable in Singapore. Suggest raising the level of protection to WP:BLUELOCK permanently since a lot of those edit warring stuff by representatives of the subject through sock puppets can be avoided. Editors shouldn't be wasting unnecessary time dealing with COI users whose objective is at WP:Stonewalling and WP:PROMO. Jane Dawson (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is he notable for? As a ‘politician’ he was an NMP with no voting power. It isn’t the same as the Canadian Senate or UK Lords. He never said anything of significance in office. His term was cut short. As a businessman, none of his companies are notable. If you do a google search now, the vast majority of news is about his Facebook comments about Singapore issues. That may make him notable in Singapore, but definitely not according to Wikipedia notability standards. OppieSG (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia needs is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And the sources should be national or at least regional in scope. Here we have a case were "national scope" of a source is a small island of 5 million people, the size of a large city in any other country. I'd say it's a loophole in the case of city-state countries, but the article does meet "the letter of the law" if not the spirit. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluelock suggestion sounds good. The level of contentiousness over this article is puzzling to an outsider. --Bistropha (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a couple of reasons. While one could argue that he's notable "nationally" in Singapore, it's also the same as being only locally notable in a city. If it were any city in the United States, he definitely wouldn't merit an article here. Secondly, I am in communication with the subject on OTRS. He has been disturbed about the article's history of "constant edit wars, vandalism and anonymous IP edits". He prefers that Wikipedia not have an article about him. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCD is not a valid policy for deletion. He is often quoted by the state media, example http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/social-media-abuzz-over-walkover and http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/halimah-may-be-strongest-ep-candidate-say-analysts If state media gives him that much attention, it means he is notable. Also, constant edit wars can be easily prevented using proper locks, there is no reason to delete the article because of that. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of non-notable people by Wiki standards that are quoted in state media frequently. Gillian Koh for example. They are even put on state media TV. The issue here is he isn’t notable for any Wikipedia recognised category. Being a political commentator and analyst often quoted in the poor press environment of Singapore is definitely not a reason. OppieSG (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is not just a political commentator, but also a former politician per WP:POLITICIAN. There are quite a number of less notable NMPs with their BLPs here such as Viswa Sadasivan whom I have never even heard of until today. We shouldn't remove a BLP just because the subject is unpopular or highly controversial figure. Also, the same policy should be applied fairly and consistently to every BLP. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NMPs are not politicians. In fact the scheme was set up to allow non-professional politicians to have a voice in Parliament. They thus have no voting power. Almost all of the entries on them should be deleted (including Viswa Sadasivan’s) unless before they were appointed, they were already notable. Some were Olympic sports people for example. The subject isn’t being proposed for deletion for being controversial. The discussion is whether he is notable. OppieSG (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NMPs are politicians. Even his BLP says he is a (former) politician. Also NMPs do have voting powers. Quote: "In Parliament, NMPs can participate in debates and vote on all issues except amendments to the Constitution, motions relating to public funds, votes of no confidence in the Government, and removing the President from office." Wikipedia's policy should apply. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wiki entry “The NMP scheme was a move to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in politics. It was a "privilege" extended to Singaporeans who could make valuable contributions to public policy but for good reasons did not desire to enter politics and look after constituencies.”. They are not politicians. Also, those four things NMPs can’t vote on are the most important functions of a legislature OppieSG (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my rationale, "state media" in this case amounts to local coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
National coverage, to be exact. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's local coverage, to be exact. It's local coverage in a city that also happens to be a country. Local coverage in any other city the size of Singapore wouldn't merit an article here. For cases like this, international coverage would be most appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, you should have the vast knowledge and experience to convince everyone here by pointing to the specific Wikipedia policy that states so to support your argument unambuiguosly instead of repeating your point. I am willing to vote otherwise if you are able to do so. I am done arguing with you. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NLI is a failed proposal. The coverage is unarguably confined to a single city. That's local coverage by any definition. The fact that the city happens to be a state is an irrelevant semantic argument. I would argue that the geographic and population-based scope of coverage matter more than the political boundary of the coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has significant violations of our policies on biographies of living people. It should be deleted for that reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit that the whole NMP scheme seems a bit odd to me, but the NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration. This is enough to give them notability. I would also back articles on every member of the central legislative bodies of every ancient Greek city state if we had the sources to verify them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some NMPs are notable and some are not. There should be no blanket policy. The question has to be given that they are not proper MPs or politicians, what ELSE is an individual notable for? So we have several in Singapore who are CEOs of billion dollar companies, leading academics, a former Attorney-General etc. Cheng does not meet any of these criteria. OppieSG (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are members of parliament and Cheng has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:NPOL. We have articles about mayors of large cities, so I don't see the problem with having an article about an NMP. There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. It is sad that the article has been plagued with so much COI editing. I suggest permanent extended confirmed protection. The comment by Anachronist indicates that the subject is aware of this article and has requested a delete. However, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE shouldn't be honoured here because the subject is not a low profile individual, but a high profile individual whose views have been quoted in newspapers regularly. Wikipedia is one of the few neutral sources of information available and deleting this does a disservice to our readers. It is funny that there was no request to delete it when this article contained a bunch of WP:PROMO content.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was. This article survived a deletion discussion 10 years ago due to the efforts of a sockpuppet. It should have been deleted then. OppieSG (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I see you have added back and made substantial changes to the article that other users have made in the last few days, without discussing it. This is as good as edit warring. Please refrain whilst this discussion is going on. OppieSG (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You talk exactly like the sockpuppets Aricialam and Historicalchild. Now that the article is not going your way, you are trying to get it deleted eh? And stop your bogus accusations of edit warring.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse people of sockpuppetry just because you disagree with them. Thanks OppieSG (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop accusing people of disruptive editing and edit warring. Nice case of pot calling the kettle black.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration and appear to have limited voting rights. The wikipedia page suggests that several NMPs have be successful in passing legislation. One of the goals of WP:NPOL is to build a record of every legislator, which includes non-voting members (similar to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in the US House). --Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not very familiar with Singapore's system of government, but if NMEPs are basically members of parliament but appointed rather than elected, then that means that they would meet WP:NPOL as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Although it appears that the subject has requested deletion of his article, WP:BLP states that such requests could only be given to low-profile individuals who probably wouldn't meet notability guidelines anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entry reads like a nasty hack job on subject. Detailed writeups about two controversies and thin on everything else. If subject is notable mostly for a price-fixing incident 6 years ago and some stupid facebook comment he wasn’t even arrested for, this entry should be deleted. Not all legislators meet WP:NPOL automatically. 195.68.63.82 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL as he is a Nominated Member of Parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In his speech to Parliament in the second reading of the Bill, when then Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong introduced the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, he makes it crystal clear that NMPs are not Politicians. In fact, the scheme was introduced precisely to allow NON-POLITICIANS a voice in Parliament.

Take some time to read this:

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00061822-ZZ

Some important quotes:

“Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics (emphasis mine) or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament.”

Politicians who have no desire to go into politics is a contradiction in terms.

“For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so.”

There are of course NMPs who were notable at their point of appointment. Examples would be Olivia Lum, founder and CEO of Hyflux, Loo Choon Yong, founder and CEO of Raffles Hospital. Or Joscelyn Yeo, who was appointed same time as Cheng, who was Singapore’s most be-medalled athelete. Some like Walter Woon, were marginally notable when appointed (being an outspoken law academic), became notable as NMP (for being the first non-Government parliamentarian to get a bill introduced and passed in Parliament) and then became even more notable after he stepped down as NMP (being appointed Ambassador to Germany, then Solictor-General and then Attorney-General of Singapore). Most however were ordinary Singaporeans who were just given a voice (academics, unionists, environmental actvists, artists) who would fail Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before, during and after appointment, if we do not automatically consider them notable as WP:NPOL. And we shouldn’t for the reasons explained above. OppieSG (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2017 (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.