Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chin Wee Loon

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 and protect from recreation, NN bio. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Wee Loon[edit]

Chin Wee Loon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been speedy 4 times, so I'll bring it here to get more eyes on it. The claim of notability is that he placed 4th in a competition for United Malays National Organisation. He says that is notable because the top 3 were Malaysian and he's Chinese apparently. No clue what this competition was or anything related to it, but it's not verifiable and it doesn't seem very notable. Metros232 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I admit that I put too much irrelevant words in the previous articles. The article now is very concise and significant. Tonytypoon 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is "Echo of Independence", which is an annual event to invite young malaysians to get involved in politics. Tonytypoon 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - nn bio. 86.136.193.83 15:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you always Speedy delete, how could new users submit useful articles to wikipedia? I believe that the wikipedia does not bite new users. Tonytypoon 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A 4th place winner in an obscure competition isn't automatically notable, no matter what his nationality may be. Kafziel Talk 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speedy delete, even - failing to come first, second or third in a non-notable competition does not constitute notability. Sounds like vanity to me. CLW 16:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is unfairly judged in the competition. Tonytypoon 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable at all. Jayden54 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crz crztalk 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)`[reply]
    • Please read the external link to see that this is notable. Tonytypoon 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is unfairly awarded with 4th place in this United Malays National Organisation competition, because UMNO is known as believing some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright. Tonytypoon 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, he's better than some of the Malays, but just not all of them, so that makes him significant because...it's hard for them to admit people can be better than them? What? Metros232 16:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to believe that Malaysian politics are biased towards Chinese. Tonytypoon 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wikipedia is supposed to report the truth and nothing but the truth. If you guys insist on deleting the truth of the article, then by all means do it, but remember that it is not an easy achievement for a Chinese to qualify for the top 10 in an UMNO-organized competition, moreover he is the only Chinese who participated out of more than 250 Malays. Melvincwl 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia is not supposed to "report" anything at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a news desk. Third, according to the article, 8 out of the top 10 were Malays; Chin Wee Loon wasn't the only foreigner to win. In fact, that means 20% of the winners were not Malays. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 finalist is Indian, 1 finalist is Chinese. This is a "Dividing the cake" illusion to cover the fact that UMNO is hugely in favor of Malays. Tonytypoon 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have a source, at all, for any of these claims you keep throwing out? Or are these just conspiracy theories of your own device to help your buddy look a little more like a martyr or hero? Metros232 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) *****I believe wikipedia only wants to give a fair and concise information of Chin Wee Loon's significant event in Malaysian politics. Tonytypoon 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does anyone else find it interesting that the information that Melvincwl added to the article [1] has been trimmed down into a short biography of Melvincwl on Melvincwl's user page? WP:AUTO concerns? Metros232 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm even more convinced now that this is a vanity article - Tonytypoon has added images of someone called Melvin standing in front of Belfast City Hall and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland to these two articles (which, of course, have been reverted). I don't know whether "Melvin" (seen here: Image:P1010171.JPG and Chin Wee Loon (seen here: Image:AABnWL.jpg) are the same person, but if so, this looks like a case of sock puppetry, as well as vanity. CLW 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, Melvincwl's user page was blanked a short time after I posted that [2]. Metros232 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete all the photos and keep Image:AABnWL.jpg - the only useful photo. I have wanted to delete the other vanity photos but only the administrator can do that. By the way, I do NOT have problem of status quo of Malaysians, since I am from Hong Kong. This is NOT conspiracy theory because it is also written in United Malays National Organisation "being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges" Tonytypoon 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do you have a source that says "The top3 won because they're Malays and the 4th place Chinese guy was just awarded 4th just to 'divide the cake' as it was put" or is this just your own idea of why he was only 4th? Metros232 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, firstly, thank you for your welcome. Secondly, what I mean by reporting is presenting an article which is true. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and as such the public has every right to view certain information pertaining to certain people of interest. And by the way, it comes with a reference with a video clip on an official website which can be accessed anytime. You cannot put in a mathematical way that 20% of the winners were not Malays. Did you know that out of 250 Malays who joined the competition, there is only one Chinese who was in the competition and yet, he made it into the top 10. It is certainly not an easy task for a Chinese to get in what more to win 4th placing. I hope you will get my point. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear CLW, it is not a vanity article. I can give you more examples of vanity articles in Wikipedia if you want. There are many inaccurate facts in many articles I have read and yet, why is my article which is purely true, is scrutinized this way. Melvincwl 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do provide me with your list of examples of Wikipedia vanity articles (at my talk page, not here, since here is not the place for this) and I'll take a look through them. Thanks, CLW 18:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xia Xue, Kenny Sia These articles are examples of real vanity. Tonytypoon 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not here - if you want me to look through these and give my opinion, please do so at my talk page. And the structure of this subthread very much suggests that Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are one and the same person. Please could you confirm whether or not this is the case?
Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are different people. Melvincwl and Tonytypoon are defending Chin Wee Loon's profile very hard for those out there who does not understand the significance of the importance of this profile page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
I am from Hong Kong. Tonytypoon 18:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - in order to clarify this, please could you clarify your relationship to Melvincwl? Thanks, CLW 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear all, I just want to put it this way that if Wikipedia does not present a true article which comes with adequate references, I do not think it is a credible encyclopedia after all. And somebody mentioned that this is a conspiracy theory. What an immature way of discrediting an article. There is no conspiracy theory at all. It is not even an article of opinion nor speculation. Who wants to waste time in making a mockery or puppetry out of somebody who is credible?

Delete as above. I checked Factiva - could not find any mention of this young gentleman in the archives of the New Straits Times or in the general press archive. It does seem like a personally or locally significant achievement for a Malaysian Chinese to place 4th in an UMNO contest, given Ketuanan Melayu, but that does not automatically make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Bwithh, even you'd agree that given Ketuanan Melayu, it is indeed a significant achievement for a non-Malay. Isn't this a crucial point for a free and open encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to allow Chin Wee Loon as a clear-cut example of how hard work and determination can make you successful anywhere you are as long as you have an objective in life. And can somebody please take down the 'this article is for deletion' and 'this article needs a clean-up'. I have already shorten the profile and include in only important things as required by a stub's criteria (which is a short article). Thank you.
    • There are no "crucial points" on Wikipedia. We're not here to teach life lessons about hard work and determination. The deletion tag can't be removed until this discussion is finished. Kafziel Talk 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Bwithh 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name Chin Wee Loon is found in http://pfs.tmspublisher.com/article.cfm?id=170 Tonytypoon 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which proves that there is someone in the world named "Chin Wee Loon." It doesn't establish any notability at all. I've had my name published in the newspaper dozens of times as part of honor roll announcements, track or cross country results, etc. Just having a name in an article doesn't establish anything really. Metros232 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) that's a school newspaper article or press release 2) it doesn't mention the competition at all Bwithh 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the person doesn't have sufficient notability. Fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Metros232, while I appreciate that you had your name published in newspapers, this is indeed an extraordinary achievement for Chin Wee Loon. It is at least not typical vanity profiles such as Xia Xue. I just do not get it why Wikipedia allows profiles such as Xia Xue when it is clearly vanity. She does not even have ample references to substantiate her facts. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Bwithh, you cannot just rely on Factiva or News Straits Times. Do you know that the New Straits Times is involved in plagiarism as well? I am surprised you still use that paper as a source of information. Melvincwl 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the news sources in Factiva (10,000+ international sources; 120+ newswires), not just New Straits Times (I specified NST as it's the leading English language newspaper in Malaysia). Did you know that the New York Times has been involved in plagiarism? I am shocked, just shocked anyone uses that paper as a source of information. Bwithh 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Kafziel, this discussion will not be done unless those scrutinizing this article understands the significance of the article. I believe there is even bias on those who are determining whether an article should be deleted or not deleted. The profile page is now edited to be as concise and precise as possible. While I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not teaching people about hard work and stuff like that, what that has been presented in the article is very true and comes with references. Thank you and I hope this article will be permanent in Wikipedia. Of course, if anybody feels there is any correction or error, the article is open to editing any time. Thank you very much.
    • Actually, this discussion will be done when an administrator decides it's done. Usually about a week. Kafziel Talk 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as requested above, please could either Tonytypoon or Melvincwl confirm what their relationship to one another is? Thanks, CLW 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is Melvincwl the same person as Chin Wee Loon? CLW 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in deed. Tonytypoon 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:AB. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict...) Then why does Melvincwl always refer to Chin Wee Loon in the third person? This is a clear case of WP:COI - assuming that Tonytypoon and Melvincwl are indeed two different people (I'll assume good faith here), all the edits to the Chin Wee Loon article are either vanity edits (i.e. by the subject of the article, without disclosing that the subject and the editor is one and the same person) or edits made by the classmate of the subject of the article. CLW 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melvin is his English name, whereas Chin Wee Loon is the Chinese name. I know this because I am his classmate and friend. Tonytypoon 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - apologies for my use of the term "vanity" which was not intended to cause any offence. If you check my edit list you'll see that I've recently returned from a very long wikibreak. The term "vanity" was previously an accepted term for edits made by the subject of an article to their own article, but I note that the consensus is now that this term should be avoided. I'll take care to avoid using it in future! CLW 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest with regard to the editing. Since I am doing this objectively. This is not an autobiography. Tonytypoon 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's a conflict of interest. Obviously you wouldn't think it was. And it is an autobiography if Melvincwl is the subject (which he is) and edits the article (which he has done). Kafziel Talk 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell Melvincwl in the usertalk page. Tonytypoon 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling both of you right here. The conflict of interest applies to you, and the autobiography applies to him. Further talk page notes aren't necessary, as the article will be deleted. Kafziel Talk 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:AB "This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." If you finally decide that classmate is conflict of interest, fair enough. But I need to clarify that this is not possible conflict of interest, as I am a student, I don't earn any income, any publication, and I don't have any business.Tonytypoon 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about you earning money. It's about writing an article about your friend. The close relationships section of COI clarifies this. Kafziel Talk 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. Classmate is not "too close" Tonytypoon 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We're quoting guidelines now? Okay, then how about this one: "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article." Kafziel Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to edit anymore. I simply want to keep the Chin Wee Loon article like this. Tonytypoon 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now, the article can't be kept. However, you are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia within the scope of the guidlines and I hope this minor setback won't discourage you from contributing in the future. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this article. It has more than enough notable explainations and references substantiating it. Why nobody ever bothered to view the video under references? I did not see any comments on this. It is not like writing an article blindly. Besides, how sure are you that other contributors never have a COI with the subject? As Wikipedia is a free and open software, anybody can edit it without even informing the admin about any COI. For one thing, I can be editing about someone else's profile and tell that person later that I was the one editing it. Or alternatively, that someone can be told in advance that I am going to edit his profile and he agrees to it. What have the admin got to say about this issue? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvincwl (talk • contribs)
    • As noted above, this editor is the subject of the article. Kafziel Talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For your info Kafziel, the editor is no longer subject of the article. The article is now up to the public to edit it. I was not aware of the autobiography policy. Anyway, do leave this article for expansion and I am sure a few people will expand it with credibility. Melvincwl 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not only who is editing the article, but the fact that you are not notable enough to have an article at all. I know that can be hard to hear, and I mean no offense - I am not notable enough to have an article either. Whether you stop editing it or not, it needs to be deleted. Kafziel Talk 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable bio article. Also, the language used fails WP:NPOV, suggesting that this is also a vanity article. Even after reading the diatribes above, I can't see how this qualifies as notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. =Axlq 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good article and notable relating to Malaysian politics and United Malays National Organisation. I am from Hong Kong by the way. Tonytypoon 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop making bizarre claims, such as that the "general Malaysian Chinese population" says that Chin Wee Loon is notable and suggesting the article has attained Good Article status. You're not helping to add any credibility to your arguments. CLW 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a good article, it's a biography stub trying to make a political point and therefore inappropriate. There is nothing in it asserting notability of this persion in relation to Malaysian politics. I see nothing in this article that couldn't already be mentioned in the other articles linked therein. =Axlq 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. This whole debate is nonsense and should be closed immediately. Danny Lilithborne 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • United Malays National Organisation "is known as being a major proponent of Malay nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu and some Islamic ideology, which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright." The words "is known as" is also credible information here. So this is not a bizarre claim/ conspiracy theory. This is a real phenomenon. Tonytypoon 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia already has articles on this issue - indeed the key one has been a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia. That doesn't make Chin Wee Loon encyclopedically notable with reliable sources to back this assertion up Bwithh 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the key one has been a featured article on the front page" is vague for wikipedia readers to understand. . The Malay nationalism article is not available. Therefore, having Chin Wee Loon in a seperate page is safest way to exemplify the Malay nationalism. Tonytypoon 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already specifically named the featured article twice in my discussion above. You're welcome to start an article on Malay nationalism. We already have Early Malay nationalism plus the substantial Category:Politics of Malaysia. Your assertion that Chin Wee Loon "exemplifies" the issue of Malay nationalism won't survive very long on any of these pages without supporting reliable sources Bwithh 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says in Malaysian Malaysia"Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour." The "favour" here is to let the Malays win the 1st to 3rd places, and have Chin Wee Loon settle in the 4th place. Tonytypoon 08:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- * How can you claimed that this article is not notable enough when even a citizen from Hong Kong sees its significance. There must be something important in this article, that is why he highlighted and posted it in Wikipedia. By the way, I did not in whatever way instruct him to write about me. This is purely his effort in bringing up the page. If the admin thinks this article is not fit to be in the software, so be it. I hope the admin will weigh the pros and cons before deleting this article. But this discussion has changed my perception about how Wikipedia is being handled by its patrollers. I can sense that some of the patrollers are indeed immature and not thoughtful and analytical enough in criticising an article. If you were in Malaysia or have experienced the Malaysian way of life, I can certainly guarantee you that you will know what is going on. And please do not just turn a blind eye on it just because one is not notable enough. He or she may not be notable to you but to some of the population in a country, it matters very much. This is my last post and I hope everybody will be liberal enough to see some of the points that I have raised. Thank you all.

  • I've re-tagged this as a speedy. There's no point at all keeping this AfD open, it's just a waste of time and effort which could be more usefully directed elsewhere. And it unquestionably meets speedy criteria. 86.134.24.74 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is supposed to cover significant events around the globe in English. Tonytypoon 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second the above motion to speedy, but I've been so involved in this that I'm not going to do it myself. Anyone else? CLW 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for speedying this. I was seconds away from doing it when I first nominated it, but then I noticed all the speedys in the past and figured it's time to actually show the user there is a consensus to delete this. I think there's an overwhelming consensus here for delete and would support a speedy delete (obviously I won't carry it out myself as the nominator). Metros232 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict...) P.S. The nominator's reason for bringing this here instead of speedying again was to get some extra input - I think this has been achieved now! CLW
    • I have reverted the Speedy Tagging (second time). The speedy tagging by an anon IP was out of process. The reason given - that 4 people in afd had asked for Speedy Delete and therefore the afd is a waste of time - is not sufficient. If a majority of people !voted in this afd discussion for Delete/Speedy Delete, and there is no significant opposition, than an admin may decided to invoke WP:SNOW. Repeated tagging of the article as speedy delete by an anonymous IP who dismisses this afd discussion as a "waste of time" is improper Bwithh 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:COI and all of the above. Akihabara 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just reinstated the speedy tag before seeing Bwithh's comment above, but I do feel that it should indeed be speedied. With regard to the "waste of time" comment, I don't think that Metros232's nomination in order to get more opinions was a waste of time - I think it was a very sensible move. However, in view of the opinions above, I do fear that keeping the AfD going would be a waste of time. CLW 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, that's what WP:SNOW is supposed to be used for - CSD tagging is a separate process. Bwithh 23:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding: Once an AfD has started it is improper to re-instate the speedy delete tag. If there are "speedy delete" votes, here, then only an admin can decide to end the discussion early and delete it. I voted to speedy delete it, so did others, that's enough. Generally when I speedy-tag something, an admin deletes the article within minutes. Notice how no admin pays attention to a speedy tag on an article that's involved in AfD. Leave it off, people. =Axlq 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, let me try to understand this. Melvincwl is in Malaysia. He and Tonytypoon are classmates. But Tonytypoon is in Hong Kong? How does that work? Delete, utterly non-notable, should have been speedied and salted. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried reinstating the speedy tag, but Bwithh has removed it again. I'm not going to reistate the tag and start warring on it, but I would urge Bwithh to reconsider... CLW 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are classmates in RCSIIreland. He is from Malaysia, and I am from Hong Kong. Tonytypoon 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Winning 4th place in this competition is not notable. If the 4th place winner was a Malay, you would agree that he is not notable. The claim to notability in this case lies with your point of view that he overcame unfair odds. That's not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It's impressive. It's heartwarming. It's not notable by Wikipedia's definition. Leebo86 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is good enough to win this with 4th place. If he is only even in the finalist, then it is not notable. Tonytypoon 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4th place is not notable, regardless of nationality. Wikipedia is not a collection of people who did "really well" in every contest ever. Leebo86 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable winner of non-notable competition. The article's existence is founded on POV, as Leebo86 points out. Resolute 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every single freaking tiny addenda to Malay pop culture or politics is no more notable than every single freaking tiny addenda to American pop culture or politics. This guy is as non-notable as the loser of the Dirt Plug, Arkansas water board commissioner election. --Charlene 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe wikipedia should contain global knowledge. Please do not judge with North American point of view. Tonytypoon 08:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete placing 4th in a single competition is not notable.-- danntm T C 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Chin Wee Loon were notable, there would be independent news sources provided explaining how he is notable. So far, no such sources have been provided at all. The only supporters of this article appear to be the subject and his classmate. How did the classmate find out about the subject coming in 4th place in the UMNO competition? Was it published in the newspapers in Hong Kong (where the classmate is from) or Ireland (where the classmate is a student now), or did the subject tell the classmate about it? This article appears to have significant problems with verifiability, reliable sources, and conflict of interest. Please note that the existence or non-existence of this article is not going to have much effect on ethnic relations in Malaysia, but if the proponents of this article are trying to convince us that the subject was relegated to 4th place in the competition (instead of winning) because of Malay nationalism and discrimination against Chinese, they will have to explain why the subject bothered to enter a contest sponsored by a Malay nationalist political party in the first place and why they gave him 4th place out of 250, placing him ahead of hundreds of Malays. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the subject wanted to practise Public speaking and Elocution as well, in the Independence Trophy Elocution 2004 competition. The only independent news sources is the video at Official WebTV of UMNO organization. The subject is in the video. Tonytypoon 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't change the status of the issue, but an official video of the competition is not an independent source. An independent source could be a video, but it would have to be made by a party with no affiliation to the competition or organizations sponsoring the competition. 206.213.251.31 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.First of all, I am Malaysian and I agree with the race barrier that do exist in a minor way in Malaysia, but then again, which country don't? Anyway, in accordance to wiki guide, winning the fourth place have no significance what so ever in my opinion. Second of all, knowing Chin Wee Loon a.k.a. melvincwl a.k.a. cwl personally, this article is strongly more of a vanity page than that of a notability article. He likes doing stuff like that with the mentality that it would give him a strong boost of sorts in the local political scene. That is a well known fact among peers. I steongly think this page should be deleted. Sorry Tony, it is the sad fact. I can verify Tonypoon is a seperate entity from Melvin but I should also point out that every defending point for the prevention of deletion of this article are all written by Melvin himself. Why would somebody defend his own autobiography? If there's significancy in the statements, many others would procceed to verify this and prevent it from deleting. Eugenekoh306
  • DELETE - I'm Malaysian Chinese; I've never heard of this guy (not that that matters), he doesn't represent me or my race, and I'm telling him to knock it off with the using of Wikipedia as a vanity page to promote his political/personal aims. Do you realize at 34 kbs and growing, this debate is at least x20 bigger than the article we're discussing? If Chin Wee Loon or his proxies are actually defending this article from deletion, its quite plainly a conflict of interest. Delete it for non-notability, 4th place is clearly not notable. To suggest notability by claiming that he was shafted by the competition, (implied racism here and in the article) is disingenous and dishonest. Was there an outcry that he was cheated out of 1st, 2nd or 3rd place? Did he return his 4th place award in protest? The answer is no. This is a self-serving vanity page. --Eqdoktor 21:13, 27 December 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/Chin_Wee_Loon&oldid=1142179930"