Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessie Wei

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 no consensus. While we can probably agree that the subject would ordinarily fail WP:BIO due to the lack of substantial independent coverage, the guideline does presume notability for the holders of notable awards and I can't discount the arguments made to that effect.  Sandstein  06:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lessie Wei

[edit]
Lessie Wei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Keep (caveat - I am article's creator).

Article and subject are both sufficiently notable. The same editor who ahd the article speedy deleted previously (when I was not around to defend it) has done so again, so I initiated this AFD for a vote by my peers. The article's subject, Lessie Wei, has an extensive CV of government service and was awarded the Silver Bauhinia Star, which is the post-British honours system in the Hong Kong SAR, which means it is the equivalent of an OBE or MBE, which are notable per se. I really would like to create articles for as many Gold Bauhinia Star and Silver Bauhinia Star awardees as I can, but it's not easy. Having an idea of whether or not these future efforts will be subjected to speedy deletes or PRODs or how my peers view them will be useful in that I won't waste my time. [email protected] (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article has been speedy deleted once as there was no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO as the references given are not independent. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the subject has not held a international, national or first-level sub-national political office. The article also seems to be very close to the past creation that was deleted. OlYellerTalktome 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALSO: The article is close to the prior version which was inappropriately speedy deleted, because it was restored by an administrator who agreed that the speedy deletion had been inappropriate, for me to work on and returned to the mainspace once I perfected it as best I could. I repeat -- the first time the article was speedy deleted I was not around to put the "hangon" tag and defend it. No one can stay on Wikipedia 24/7. It should have been AFDed or PRODded to be fair in that regard. Speedy deletes should only be used in cases of blatant nonsense, vandalism, slander or libel, none of which is the case here. Bottom line: subject is notable by virtue of government background and Silver Bauhinia Star honour (see above). [email protected] (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for deletion of recreated material only applies for articles that were deletion through discussion, such as this discussion, and not speedy deletion or a prod. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the creator wants it kept, why did they start an afd? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an answer to this please read my above comments. Suffice to say that I feel the article is entitled to be defended and I am not afraid of a fair vote on the article's merits by my peers on Wikipedia. To deal with speedydelete, there is no guarantee that will happen as a hangon tag can be and have been and are often ignored. [email protected] (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's precisely two sources kinds of sources which could be used to expand this article:
  • Information which Ms. Wei has chosen to put out there herself in her government bio
  • Character assassination in unreliable POV-pushing sources [1]
Not exactly the stuff which we should be using to write biographies of living people. Ms. Wei has received no attention from reliable media, whether English-language or Chinese-language, except as an easily-quotable "authority figure" due to her title. This appears to be the same situation for almost all the other Silver Bauhinia Star awardees; that lack of sources argues against "automatic notability" for any of them (aside from the ones who were already notable regardless of some lump of government-approved metal, like Jackie Chan, or those who went on to higher things and subsequently got awarded an even more illustrious lump of metal, like Timothy Fok). I'd like to see some of those people with a "keep" opinion address this problem ... cab (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the article looks like POV Pushing, doesn't mean we should delete it. Someone can address that problem only when you keep the article. Ms Wei is a recipient of both SBS & JP. Those 2 alone can keep the article! According to some wiki members here, just because we can't find reliable media to write her bio, we should delete her entry all together?! Great, we should just keep the "good people's bio" on wikipedia then. plz~ TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if bios don't have reliable sources for their info, the information should be removed as specifically stated in WP:BLP. If there are no reliable and independent sources for an article, the article should be deleted. OlYellerTalktome 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP also says to improve the article and use RS. The article has refs from the Gov. of Hong Kong, now please tell me they are not RS so you can delete it. Also, while you are at it, I want to delete the following Wiki Entry: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Kim Jong-il, I think they are POV Pushing & and none of the refs are RS. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to know three things:
First - why does cab cite Epoch Times as I do not recall ever using that paper for any references on Wikipedia, much less Lessie Wei
Second - why does TheAsianGURU claim I am "POV Pushing", when I am doing no such thing?
You made it sound like I was the first one to say that. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third - and more important -- how can OlYeller21 state that my article [does not] "have reliable sources for their info" and that there are "no reliable or independent sources" for this article? This user is being wholly disingenuous because the below-referenced sources were provided in the Lessie Wei article.OlYeller21's stalking of the article since it was properly restored -- as it should have been, since it never should have been speedy deleted in the first place -- does not inspire confidence, either.
  1. http://www.csb.gov.hk/print/english/info/788.html
  2. http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/publications/publications_press/pr105.html
  3. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr96-97/chinese/lc_sitg/floor/961002cd.doc
  4. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr95-96/english/panels/fa/minutes/fa290796.htm
  5. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/98/1/1.98.swf
  6. http://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20010513e/egn2001051313.pdf
Yours, [email protected] (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to the guideline on notability, specifically the part which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So any source you cite in writing this article should satisfy three criteria: 1. Significant, 2. Reliable, and 3. Independent. Unfortunately, people on Wikipedia often use "Reliable" as a shorthand for referring to all three of these criteria --- sorry for the confusion.
Examples of sources satisfying all three criteria would be real newspapers (something like Ming Pao, not government proceedings or obscure screeds put out by animal rights groups), books, academic journals, etc. which discuss Ms. Wei. Of the sources you listed above:
  1. Neither significant (1 paragraph about Ms. Wei) nor independent (it is written by Ms. Wei's employer, and probably by Ms. Wei herself)
  2. Has significant coverage of some tree-planting programme, not significant coverage of Ms. Wei who is only being quoted, not written about
  3. Primary source (raw text of legislative proceedings), not secondary source; also not significant coverage of Ms. Wei as it mentions her name precisely once in a long list of names
  4. Primary source (raw text of legislative proceedings), not secondary source; also it's not about Ms. Wei, it's about the topic of "history and the present market situation of bullion trading in Hong Kong" on which Ms. Wei gave a report
  5. Does not consist of significant coverage (it mentions Ms. Wei's name once) in addition to being a fringe publication
  6. Does not consist of significant coverage (Ms. Wei's name appears in a huge laundry list of individuals).
Finally, I did not state that you cited the Epoch Times. I myself am offering it as an example of a source which meets at least 2 out of 3 criteria in WP:N: it covers Ms. Wei somewhat non-trivially and is also independent of Ms. Wei; however, it is also a fringe publication, and thus doesn't qualify as a "reliable source". Regards, cab (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RMS, I think it's important to note that this article is not yours (see WP:OWNERSHIP. People think you're POV pushing because it's become obvious that you're emotionally involved with this article. Calling me a "stalker of this article" is a personal attack and would further prove that you're emotionally attached. The article was on my watchlist as it was automatically added when I tagged it for an A7 speedy deletion the first time. I realize that you may have worked hard on this article and it may or may not be deleted but please refrain from personal attacks and taking ownership of an article that belongs to Wikipedia. OlYellerTalktome 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look I am not emotionally attached to the article. (There are some articles I have created that I care about strongly, but not this one.) If it's deleted, it's deleted. I know I do not own the article or any other work product related to Wikipedia. However the article never should have been speedy deleted in the first place to land on OlYeller21's watchlist. The judgment of the person who tagged it and the admin who complied were both seriously flawed. The fact that I was denied due process the first time around is the reason we have to go through this now. If User:OlYeller21 had checked the article's history he would have seen that the article had been restored to the mainspace by an administrator, one who acknowledged to me that speedy deletion had been inappropriate. In that light tagging it again as a speedy delete was inappropriate. This article, however imperfect, bears no resemblance to the nonsense, plagiarism and vandalism that WP:SPEEDYDELETE was designed to eliminate. [email protected] (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CSD for what speedy deletion is for. The page made no assertion of notability (the award part was left out) so it was deleted under A7 (not for "nonsense, plagiarism and vandalism"). Again, you're making false claims about the tagger (me) and the admin (who I have notified about this discussion). How could I have checked the history to see that it was userfied before the article was deleted in the first place? Also, any deleted article can be userfied as long as it's not vandalism or plagarism (see here). Also, I'm very interested to see a link to where the administrator who restored the article to your userspace, agreed that the article was deleted incorrectly. I found these 4 conversations you had with the userfying admin where there was no indication of your claim that it was "inappropriately" deleted ([2][3][4][5]). It's very possible that I missed something but I'm asking that you back up your claim about an admin and my "seriously flawed." Your colloquial responses, constant bolding, personal attacks, perhaps the longest list of confirmed sockpuppets I've ever seen (Category:[email protected][6]), previous ban and this edit is what made me think that you're emotionally attached to this article. This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article but your false claims need to be addressed where you made them.OlYellerTalktome 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your colloquial responses, constant bolding, personal attacks, perhaps the longest list of confirmed sockpuppets I've ever seen (Category:[email protected][7]), previous ban and this edit is what made me think that you're emotionally attached to this article. This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article but your false claims need to be addressed where you made them" -- and you're not a stalker!?!? Well, maybe this is a self-fulfilling prophecy on my end, but I've been around the block and can usually judge 'em. As far as your making reference to things from my pre-reinstatement period, which far more knowledgeable and qualified persons than you have already reviewed ad nauseum, and which, in your own words, "have nothing to do with this article", is evidently some primitive attempt to embarrass me. It won't work but it does show me the kind of person you are. [email protected] (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I reviewed the WP:CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." That sounds like the article should never have been speedy deleted to begin with the first time, much less twice, and that I followed the proper protocol. [email protected] (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:BIO the silver star is enough to establish notability and you need look no further, you don't need in-depth blah blah blah. Drawn Some (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presumption of "automatic notability" from award X generally flows from the idea that award X is given only to those who actually have some accomplishments or contributions beyond showing up to work every day. What accomplishment sparked my government to give Ms. Wei the SBS? Apparently, no one (not even the government which issued the award, let alone the media which can choose whatever they want to write about) cares enough to say why. As far as I can see, they give these things out like candy to retiring civil servants of no accomplishment or fame whatsoever. That argues strongly against automatic notability for any SBS awardee. My grandpa got a gold watch and a plaque when he retired too.
Try googling any of the other names on the list of SBS awardees. Neither I nor any other member of the HK public knows about people like Robert George KOTEWALL, LEUNG Cham-tim, etc. Journalists don't care. Scholars don't care. So why should Wikipedia serve as space to reprint their government-issued biographies which have undergone no independent fact-checking? Let the government gazetteer list all these utterly non-notable people; that is not the function of Wikipedia. cab (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEOPLE say that a person is notable if they, "received a notable award or honor." I don't consider this award notable but that's just me. OlYellerTalktome 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated this thoroughly. This system of honors replaced the British system after the lease on Hong Kong expired. Both are awarded by the government and recipients are chosen by the government. The recipients of the British awards are considered inherently notable, there is no reason not to accord the same for the recipients of the Hong Kong awards. Any criticism made of them could be leveled at the British honors. Drawn Some (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a fair conclusion. The problem I have is that I don't see where anyone has been proven inherently notable for winning the Silver Bauhinia Star. On the Wiki page, the awardees are listed and less than 10% of them have their own page on Wikipedia. Has that precedent been set in AfDs? I haven't checked. If so, can you provide some links please? OlYellerTalktome 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first 6 articles for awardees (from the top of the list) and all of them are notable for other reasons. OlYellerTalktome 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for the British honors being considered notable at AfD, I don't know about the Hong Kong ones. The author actually put the article up for AfD to get a determination because it was being speedied. When I say I investigated this, I spent well over an hour, I don't remember exactly because it's been a while. I read up on the history of both the British honors and the Hong Kong ones, the here and investigated the numbers of recipients, the departments of government and positions she held, etc. Note that the author is only planning to do gold and silver stars, there are certainly more bronze stars handed out. I'm not sure where the POV thing is coming from, like I said, it's no different from any of the current Commonwealth countries in the way it works. Drawn Some (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I see you found the first six notable for other reasons as well, that would tend to confirm my findings, I didn't even think of doing that. Drawn Some (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that confirms your findings at all, to be blunt. All I was saying is that those people are notable for reasons complete independent of the award. You say that they are inherently notable based on precedent but haven't showed that with any proof whatsoever (especially when asked specifically). Prove that there it s precedent for silver star winners being notable and I'll change my opinion. Don't dodge my question unless your dodging is admitting that there is no precedent. OlYellerTalktome 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be prepared to accept the highest level, the Gold star, as notable. Based on the careers on some of those awarded the medal [8], it appears to go to the very highest ranking civil servants, essentially the level of ministers. I would not be prepared to accept lower levels. I don't think its compatible with what we do for other jurisdictions. Some of them are members of the Legislative Council & might thereby be qualified, but other are at the level of Deputy Secretaries of departments, not Secretaries. DGG (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (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/Lessie_Wei&oldid=1144712135"