Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amina Bokhary controversy

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Bokhary controversy[edit]

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

Request by subject ticket:2017020510005638 S Philbrick (Talk) 13:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could not get in the OTRS. I'd like to know the reasons for this nomination. STSC (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I was the subject, I would not be pleased with the negative portrayal, but a request from the subject for deletion is not in itself addequate grounds. Say what you will about the overbearing HK media because the crime is a minor one, but the event was a significant controversy in Hong Kong worthy of a WP article. It seems otherwise to be written in a fairly objective manner, and therefore does not fall into the category of an attack page. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The controversy did look like a storm in a tea cup but is nonetheless notable according to Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that I am an OTRS agent. We cannot disclose the contents of the tickets beyond saying that it contained a request for deletion of this article. This nomination should be considered procedurally made by an OTRS agent. Sphilbrick may or may not support deletion, but I don't believe he intends to fall one way or the other in this discussion (correct me if wrong). My !vote is based on the coverage the topic has received. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the subject of an article requests deletion of the article we typically inform them how they can request that themselves, but if they have difficulty we offer to do it for them. Unless we arrange for the permission of the person contacting us, we not permitted to provide details. The nomination does not necessarily reflect my views regarding the article. In some cases, we may advise the subject that it is likely to be a waste of time, but if they insist we carry it out.--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article that has significant coverage. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story was extensively covered in HK media at the time and the article reflects that. Matt's talk 08:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article isn't violating any policy. Request from subject of the controversy is noted, but there will still be people that want to read about it and not wanting it being read, isn't enough a reason to delete. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on keep. I respect Bokhary's wish to take down the article, but this article is neutrally written and sourced from publicly available information. Deryck C. 11:10, 26 July 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.