Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Wee

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 delete. - Bobet 08:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Wee[edit]

IMO,NN Dave 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would help if you provided some reasoning for that opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, was in a rush - reasoning as per other Delete votes. Dave 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Went to school. Got a degree. Got a job. Has a family. I'd have considered just going with a {{db-bio}} --Onorem 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unreferenced assertion of notability, 114 ghits. MER-C 12:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 37 of these results are unique, with the majority of them being a listing in a name directory. --Wafulz 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The job is a quite senior one with a very large company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 114 hits on Google and general counsel of one of the world's largest lines and you say "unreferenced assertion of notability" ? Are you guys wanting to delete this lady's article nuts ??? -- Singaporelawyer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk • contribs)
Why is this article selected for deletion ?
What is wrong with the article ?
I think it should be retained.
She is quite well known among Singaporean legal circles as one of the best general counsel int he business. She was recently nominated for an award in the Asian Legal Business Awards as corporate counsel of the year.-- Singaporelawyer Moving comment from talk page --Wafulz 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wavering over this, but i think now it's a delete; I'm not convinced that she is notable outside of the company. As i said; i was verging on proposing to keep, but i just don't think she's notable and all the efforts to prove otherwise just don't convince. (Also, constant removal of the AfD header whilst the discussion's ongoing is not good). Onebravemonkey 14:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What exactly is the significance of a group general counsel? --Wafulz 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you do not know how large the NOL-APL group of companies is, then you need to check this out: [1] & [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User Dave (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - There's been a fair bit of foul play with this nom: This entry was deleted from the AfD page, the AfD header has been constantly removed and User:Dave's userpage has been vandalised. Could everyone calm down and continue to review this document in the correct manner. If it is a worthy article then please discuss it here, but any further aggressive action will not help its cause. Onebravemonkey 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also been a fair bit of malicious sock-puppetry surrounding this. Onebravemonkey 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can say that again. Pik Chiang, User Dave, Singaporelawyer, and Mad Cow Disease. All edits today, and all dealing with either Wee, her husband (who's page should also probably be AfD'd...), or vandalizing the user page of Dave. --Onorem 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Martin Marini is also a user. I'm not sure if his user page came from a delete/userfy or if he made it himself. --Wafulz 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Also, please note that User:Dave and User:User Dave are distinct editors. --Wafulz 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've looked through all of the information, and while the companies are notable, I can't find any information on the subject other than the fact that they worked for the company. Any information on the article would end up being original research because it can't be verified. If anything, I think it could redirect to the relevant company--Wafulz 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User is nn, and gaming the AfD process doesn't make me want to give her the benefit of the doubt. --Aaron 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Senior job at a large company is not one of the WP:BIO guideline criteria... no other assertion of notability.--Isotope23 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment add WP:V and WP:NOR to my objections, I just realized, none of the links in this article actually mention Marjorie Wee, making this fail policies as well as a guideline.--Isotope23 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Singaporelawyer (talk • contribs) points out, she is notable within the legal community as well, not just within the company. Group general counsel is typically one of the eight or so highest positions in a company. "She is quite well known among Singaporean legal circles as one of the best general counsel int he business. She was recently nominated for an award in the Asian Legal Business Awards as corporate counsel of the year." She would have played a large part in any significant transactions that the company engaged in, including the acquisition of other shipping lines. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ay yi yi... WP:V, WP:NN, sockpuppetry... -- Kicking222 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

•[Comments moved from Discussion page:

1."KEEP - Its refreshing to have an Asian lady lawyer who is not a politician." (unsigned)

2."I see from Google that this same lady lawyer is also featured on websites in the US and the Philippines in connection with her work. I don't think the comment "I'm not convinced that she is notable outside of the company" was a fair one. Check these external websites out: Singapore International Chamber of Conmmerce[http://www.sicc.com.sg/who_weare_committees2.htm, Law Society of Singapore - 2 separate committees: [3] & [4]." User Dave|User Dave

3.WHY DELETE ? 2006 In-house counsel of the year award! And still this is not enough for the earlier user who stated: "Went to school. Got a degree. Got a job. Has a family." ? Definitely notable in my books."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk • contribs)

4.Keep - If a Singapore lady attorney can look after the legal affairs of the American President Lines, then I say please keep."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pik Chiang (talk • contribs)

•New Comment - Disagree with Kicking222. Keep. Subject 114 hits in Google. Checked Google for "Kicking222" - no hits. Score now: Subject - 114 vs "Kicking222" - O. I am Spartacus too! 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than Truthbringer Toronto, all the editors opining keep are new accounts registered in the last couple of days... and several of them have an odd penchant for tagging vandalism edits with a "cleanup" edit summary.--Isotope23 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am emphatically not accusing User:TruthbringerToronto of sock- or meat-puppetry. I am, however, offering an opinion that some other people who (unfortunately) happen to agree with TbT look like multiple {sock|meat}puppets of others who have "voted" above. Not naming specific names, again, TbT would definitely not be among my list of those who might be the puppetmaster. I am clarifying this solely because my comment above, along with Isotope23's reply, could be misunderstood to be an accusation. --Storkk 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... and I wasn't accusing User:TruthbringerToronto of any misdeeds either... I was merely pointing out that TruthbringerToronto is the only editor in good standing who has opined Keep.. I wasn't suggesting he was in any way connected to any of the other editors opining keep(to seperate TbT from the rest of the Keepers who are all new accounts). TbT and I fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but I've never seen TbT do anything disruptive here at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring my strong delete comment that was deleted by 218dot186dot9dot2. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A senior executive at a large corporation can sometimes have rather more power than an elected politician, even though their activities might not be as well documented. This discussion is about notability, not about inappropriate behavior by new or anonymous editors. In general, I think that it would be helpful to have more articles about senior corporate executives, and I am afraid that this discussion will discourage editors from writing such articles. I'm also concerned that Wikipedia is better at providing coverage of the entertainment industry than it is at covering shipping lines and their senior executives. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a large, notable company, I would not automatically grant notability to any employees except the one or two most senior officers. Otherwise, there most be some other assertion of notability to meet the criteria of WP:BIO, and that's missing here. --Satori Son 06:28, 18 September 2006 (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/Marjorie_Wee&oldid=1069213432"