Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Ip

Add links
From 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 keep. No sock arguments have been taken into consideration, but consensus remains clearly against deleting the article. However, WP:NPASR applies in view of the confusion they have strewn. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 17:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ip[edit]

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

Joshua Ip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines in WP:POET. He has not written any works that are transformational, original or a significant public monument. In the news, coverage of him is only in passing, and most of the other sources are blogs. He does not appear to be widely cited by peers, or as having influenced any notable poets. I cannot see any justification for retaining this as an encyclopedia entry. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Based on WP:ANYBIO, the subject has won multiple national-level awards in his field, including the Young Artist Award and Singapore Literature Prize, which are the highest national-level awards for a young artist and a published manuscript respectively. Also, a check of Google Scholar reveals multiple citations from notable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals – regular inclusions in the annual “Malaysia and Singapore” digest of the Journal of Commonwealth Literature, the “Contemporary Literature from Singapore” article in the Oxford Research Encylopedia of Literature 2017, introductions of Singapore Literature in English and other books. Google News includes significant coverage in multiple national newspapers, inclusive of reviews, interviews and articles. Lightsup112 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC) — Lightsup112 (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Desapar (talk • contribs). [reply]
Lightsup112 can you attach these sources you mention? Google News coverage that I found was not significant, covering the subject in passing only. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to weigh in on the rest. Even assuming that you are correct (still waiting for the links) about citation in peer-reviewed academic journals; this is not enough to establish notability. The subject must be widely cited, which indicates their authority in their field. The only news coverage I could find includes blogs (not a reliable source, WP:RSOPINION). There is some coverage in The Straits Times, but these are (1) some pieces written by the subject, and not about the subject, and (2) reviews of his books, but not coverage of him. There is not a single source of significant coverage in a reliable third party source that I can find to establish the subject's notability, not even following his winning the Singapore Literature Prize. The Singapore Literature Prize is a significant achievement, but whether this is enough to establish the winner's notability is dubious. The subject has himself said it has weak recognition even in Singapore: [1] that "while the prize has some cachet within the community ... it has some way to go in terms of recognition by a wider Singaporean audience." All this adds up to: why should the subject warrant an entry in an encyclopedia? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple,
  • How can it be correct that a person is deserving of an encyclopedia entry because one of their books has been reviewed by one newspaper? This is setting the bar very, very low indeed, and would flood Wikipedia with entries. This doesn't even fulfil the notability criteria for the book, which requires coverage in (per WP:BK) two or more non-trivial sources.
  • The comparison with high British orders cannot be correct; no one who has refused a high British order has done so because it is not notable. In fact, they would have done so precisely because of how well-known it is, so that refusing to accept the honour makes a statement of principle. The point I am making is that (1) the Singapore Literature Prize is poorly recognised in Singapore, and (2) the subject has himself said this in a well known publication (and as a recipient, he is something of an authority on the subject). If a Singaporean literature prize is not even well recognised by a Singaporean audience, what claim can it have to generating notability?
  • I would also point out this, very importantly: the person needs to be notable enough to warrant their own biographical entry. If the person is defined solely in terms of a single event, then perhaps it would make sense for an entry for the book, but not for the author. I cannot find any sources covering the subject in detail. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) i did not say that one review means that someone meets wp:author, only that reviews (note the plural) indicate that, i then gave one example;
  • 2) please provide sources that back up your statement that the SLP is "is poorly recognised in Singapore" and not just from an apparently (from your pov anyway:)) non-notable person (i note that the wikarticle on the SLP has nothing about this), ditto (sources please) with your statement "no one who has refused a high British order has done so because it is not notable. In fact, they would have done so precisely because of how well-known it is", i don't see that reason at List of people who have declined a British honour, unfortunately The Guardian doesn't say much here on why (the number one reason for refusal of australian honors (that are based on the british system) according to the Herald Sun btw is not because they're notable but due to "modesty" - "Leading Australians snub Order of Australia honours");
  • 3) agree that, in the majority of cases, if someone is known for one event/book, then that event/book might warrent an article, not the person. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Fine. As you say, no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR says that multiple independent reviews make an author likely to be notable. If you are able to attach any other reviews of the same book, this would go some way to justifying your point. I, for one, could not find any. I saw one here: [2], but the subject is himself an editor of that journal, so I don't think the source qualifies as independent coverage. (I stand corrected) (Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
2. My point is that the subject is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. This does not mean that nothing he says deserves notice. As a recipient of the award, he is perfectly placed to opine that it is not well recognised, and he did so in a well known publication. The same 2018 article quotes "writers and publishers" as saying that the prize's impact on sales is "negligible". They say that "the prize struggles to move beyond preaching to the converted". The article also says that the prize has not propelled its winners onto the Straits Times bestseller list, with a "rare" exception of The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, which won three Eisner Awards (clearly notable, the equivalent of winning an Oscar, and far more likely to be the cause of its popularity). I accept what you say about British honours, though there are plenty of examples on the list you have attached of people declining honours for principled reasons - see Peter Benenson as a protest against British human rights abuses, Patrick Heron as a protest against British education policy, HLA Hart who believed that state honours should only be given for public service, or Stephen Hawking, who did not like titles. No one on that list would seriously suggest that British honours are not notable, the way Joshua Ip suggests that the Singapore Literature Prize is not notable.
3. There might be a case for that here - one of Joshua Ip's books receiving an article, but not him. There are simply too few sources from which to construct a reliable picture of him, and this might simply be because he is not notable enough for one. Though I would point out that even his Singapore Literature Prize winning anthology sonnets from the singlish has hardly any coverage beyond bookshops and Cha Literary Journal, which as I said above, Joshua Ip is an editor of. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Subject has been conferred several national awards, including the Singapore Literature Prize in 2014 and Young Artist of the Year in 2017. This qualifies the subject as notable, under notability guidelines WP:ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."). Significant transformational content is not a prerequisite for entry. Desapar (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded to this point above. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - WP:GNG

  • Significant coverage of the subject's work in peer-reviewed journals,<[3][4], citations in introductions of scholarly books on Singaporean Literature by notable presses [5], coverage in encyclopedic entries on the topic, [6],
  • Multiple reviews of the subject's work in multiple newspapers[7],[8][9], multiple independent literary journals[10][11][12].
  • Multiple national-level awards, including the Singapore Literature Prize and Golden Point Award, [13] and the Young Artist Award, " Singapore’s highest accolade for young arts practitioners who show promise of artistic excellence in the fields of dance, theatre, music, literature, photography, art and film."[14] A cursory comparison reveals that there is no other Singaporean writer in English who has been awarded all of these three. 2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, some examples in passing of significant coverage of subject in literary essay collections by peer [15][16], being taught in course syllabi at university-level[17], inclusion in commercially-available educational material.[18]2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC) — 2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB is blocked as a sock puppet of Desapar (talk • contribs). [reply]
I will let others weigh in, but here's my take.
  • There are only two good sources in this list: [3] and [16]. Everything else is sparse, especially the newspaper coverage. The journal entries are useful, but the engagement does not suggest anything seminal about his work. As such, it generates about the same kind of notability value as a junior academic, and junior academics do not warrant Wikipedia biographies.
  • Here's an example of good newspaper coverage. It is of the "peer" you cited - Koh Jee Leong, [19], and is of a full profile of the subject. His work has also been recommended as a top book by the Financial Times. Even he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page. Wherever Joshua Ip is quoted in newspapers, it is just in passing or a routine review of a book.
  • The Golden Point Award recognises promise of artistic excellence. But an encyclopedia chronicles notable achievements, not the potential for them. A Rhodes scholar, for example, does not get a Wikipedia article simply for being a Rhodes scholar.
  • As far as I can see, Joshua Ip's strongest claim to fame is the Singapore Literature Prize. This would ordinarily be enough for me, but I am conflicted for the following reasons:
  1. This isn't the Booker Prize or the Nobel Prize for Literature. It's a national award. For this reason, the bar is higher to show that it is a well-known and significant award or honour. (per WP:ANYBIO)
  2. Its notability is dubious even for its target audience. Singapore's largest daily newspaper has quoted writers (including Joshua Ip!) and publishers saying that it is not widely recognised by Singaporeans.
For these reasons, I find it hard to accept that he warrants an encyclopedia biography for having won the SLP. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The subject may not have received very much international coverage, but he is much-discussed in the Singaporean press. A cursory search on https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ reveals that his name has appeared 74 times since 2012. (The articles are sadly paywalled.)
  • Furthermore, if one demands that all subjects on Wikipedia must receive international coverage in order be deemed encyclopedia-worthy, that excludes most writers from small nations, especially those who do not write in English. A cursory look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Singaporean_poets reveals entries by Singaporean writers who have accomplished less, such as Rebecca Chua, Sng Boh Kim, Muhammad Jailani Abu Talib and Teo Poh Leng.
  • Kohlrabi Pickle also erroneously states that the subject is an editor of Cha journal. The journal itself does not list him as such. https://www.asiancha.com/content/view/3022/640/ Ng.yisheng 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no expectation of international coverage by Wikipedia policies. My issue is that his press coverage is cursory. If this is because I brought up the Financial Times, I would be satisfied with Ip's books appearing on the Straits Times bestseller list or being recommended as a top book by the Straits Times, which would at least indicate notability in Singapore. It seems from online sources that the books are neither bestsellers, nor has anyone suggested that they are transformative or a significant literary contribution. I would be very happy to be proven wrong. I stand corrected about Cha Literary Journal - I had opened a past issue where he was a guest editor. I have stricken out the erroneous statements in my text above. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep having read through the provided sources, as well as additional sources linked here, I think that the subject falls short of cleanly meeting GNG. However, it's clear that he receives critical attention for his work, and national literature prizes go a fair way toward meeting ANYBIO. Additionally, because the subject writes in Chinese in addition to English, there's a solid chance that there's additional coverage of his work in other languages. I would feel more strongly about this vote if either we already had articles for the awards that Ip has won (establishing their notability), or if it was clear that a large portion of Ip's work was non-English, but I think that there's reason to believe that WP:NPOSSIBLE has been met. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 6 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Ip&oldid=949988939"