- Rupert Dover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Allow recreation. Dover (Chinese: 陶輝) has received significant coverage following Next Magazine's scoop regarding the legality of his place of residency. See, among other sources, RTHK, Ming Pao, Oriental Daily News, Apple Daily. Significant content regarding the news has been added to the Chinese version of the article: see differences between revisions. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate is not reliable when translating between Chinese and English. We need an independent Chinese speaker who's familiar with Chinese news sources to evaluate this. We may be able to recruit one on WT:WikiProject China; anyone object to me posting there?—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Though I've found the Chinese to be largely good enough for checking for notability. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just posted a link to this discussion at WT:HK. For what it's worth, I read and write Chinese natively. feminist #WearAMask😷 17:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't actually anything stopping someone from recreating this. It isn't salted and the deleted version was userfied to User:SCP-2000/Rupert Dover so there isn't any deleted history. As long as a recreation is a significant improvement on the AfDed version it shouldn't be speedily deleted, and I'm sure a pile of new news coverage would meet this. Hut 8.5 17:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It's just that I would like to seek some form of confirmation before recreating this. feminist #WearAMask😷 01:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to echo Hut 8.5 here, but want to specifically endorse the close. This wasn't deleted because of a lack of significant coverage, it was deleted because of WP:NOT/a BLP attack page. Any new article must clear that threshold, not the GNG threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is certainly something notable here. English sources don't get me to believe there is enough for a BLP, but the issue of British police in HK during the riots certainly seems well covered. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent news coverage has nothing to do with any form of protests. It concerns what is increasingly a scandal involving his place of residency, and the current evidence is pretty damning for a police officer at his level. True that English-language media in Hong Kong doesn't seem to have picked up on this, but there is no requirement that reliable sources must be in English. feminist #WearAMask😷 01:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying there is enough for an article somewhere. The English sources don't get us to this being a BLP. I can believe others might. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I have read the four proffered sources through, google translate is plenty good enough. They are tabloid-style personal sleuthing primary sources, about his house being in non compliance for a third floor extension. A neighbours dispute. This is not reputable sourcing, and is it primary source reporting, facts, no transformative commentary. Not notable, with a huge angle of violating WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the four sources are tabloid (RTHK is HK govt owned public broadcaster). Lands Department has started investigation, so it's not personal sleuthing as SmokeyJoe suggested either.--Roy17 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reporters following the subject, taking street photographs of the subject, and photographs of his house, and accessing court documents, that's not the style of reputable sources whether you call it "tabloid" or not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The house and the person are the subjects of a scandal (suspected illegal occupation of government land). Could SmokeyJoe please enlighten us on a realistic approach for journalists reporting on this without interviewing the person or filming the house? Note that the journalists work in public space and freedom of panorama of buildings is allowed in HK just like in the UK.--Roy17 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a publisher of investigative journalism. Wikipedia wait's for reliably published secondary source to comment on the topic. Notability-attesting sources are well separated from the topic by time and space. Your sources are too close. Wait for sources that can be described as "stories", not "reports". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We must remember that these are mere accusations of malfeasance, and that a person is innocent until proven guilty. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely more than just "his house being in non compliance for a third floor extension". It's a scandal where more details are continuously revealed. His houses were suspected to be constructed on government land for his private use. He has been providing short-term leases with his second house; now the Home Affairs Department has confirmed that Dover has not obtained a hotel licence for that house, and will be conducting an investigation. [1] Two journalists were arrested while conducting an investigatiion [2], sparking condemnation from the Hong Kong Journalists Association. Plenty of coverage surrounding Dover. There are strict guidelines surrounding house sizes in Hong Kong, with the potential to torpedo the reputation of public officials (see Henry Tang illegal basement controversy for an example). feminist #WearAMask😷 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s not definitely more than housing law non-compliance. There may be low level corruption. At best, this whole story is investigative journalism. It was properly deleted. It is foul of WP:BLP, sleuthing primary sources, and WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sourcing is NOT sufficienctly distant in perspective. The sources are not sufficiently independent and not sufficiently secondary. It’s a worthy looking story, but Wikipedia is not the place to first publish the whole story. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. Subject is notable. Independent and in-depth sources exist.--Roy17 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of a sourced two-sentence deep comment on the subject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two paragraphs for SmokeyJoe: 《壹週刊》報道指陶輝涉嫌「非法租住」牌照屋，並引述消息指他涉違規改建天台及霸佔官地。本報記者昨到場見該屋樓高3層，包括天台，門前有小花園。¶地政總署昨回覆本報查詢，證實上址位處政府土地牌照範圍內，根據現行政策，牌照持有人不准轉讓或出租有關構築物，如有違反地政總署會向牌照持有人採取執管行動。該署稱，牌照持有人資料屬個人資料，無法提供；本報就陶輝的居住資格，以及他被指霸佔官地和違規的指控查詢，該署均沒有回應。.--Roy17 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had to use Google Translate for that, but I don't think that article shows any sort of notability whatsoever - it's about a scandal relating to the size of a house. The issue here isn't whether the subject has had press, it's whether there's been enough coverage of them to get past our WP:BLP requirement. I don't have any problem having an article on him if it's properly done, but I'm very concerned he's either not notable or won't pass our strict BLP standards and will end up being an attack page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. That is a news report, rolling factual statements, no trans formative comment, no contextualization, no opinion of the author. It is not a secondary source. It does not meet the criteria of the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this article should be preserved because Dover has enough awareness for the citizens, and he was reported by most of the mainstream media, regardless of internet or physical media.--Yolopertz (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: was just recreated. If the recreation is kept, I suggest merging the history from User:SCP-2000/Rupert Dover given the similarities --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is very concerning, considering I think the new version is a BLP attack page, which were my exact concerns above. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this page continues to be a WP:COATRACK/WP:BLPATTACK page, some of the newly added material is neither neutral or about him at all. I'd recommend deleting and salting until we can write a neutral article on him. Again, the fact he receives coverage is not my issue with this article, nor do I have any particular desire to protect this individual, but I have a strong desire to keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedians are educators, and that's why it's so important that we tell the truth. Npov doesn't mean we have to whitewash things. If the sources are negative about this gentleman then our article should reflect them. BLP policy is about removing unsourced contentious material. There's rightly no provision that requires us to remove contentious material that's immediately followed by an inline citation to a source. I still think we need input from someone independent who can tell us whether those are the best sources, though: I'm not linguistically or culturally equipped to evaluate them.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair, but WP:BLP functionally leads with:
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The very next sentence is that we are an "encyclopaedia, not a tabloid." Covering very recent scandals in an article about someone who may not be otherwise notable seems to me to be a flagrant WP:BLP violation. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion/keep recreation although not notable coverage as of the time of the original deletion request, there has been signifiant coverage of the recent scandals in reputable english sources such as SCMP [3][4] and HKFP [5]--17jiangz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why is this at deletion review? The AfD was 7 months ago, with two DRVs in the same month (closed as a unanimous endorse). The article was recently recreated now, 7 months after the old AfD. — MarkH21talk 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was recreated after the DRV was initiated. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - I nominated the article for deletion as it was simply an attack page. The current content of the has not changed this. A person of Dover's rank would not usually warrant an article, and the current controversy is a very common problem in HK due to lax enforcement by the Lands Department; the issue has some merit, and Dover as a brutal cop and major hate figure is a legitimate political target for Apple Daily. The worst that can happen is a demolition order and a fine (but IMHO, it will just get swept under the rug bearing in mind the political climate). Until there is more notable "achievements", the article should stay deleted and the space salted. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this point given the article has been recreated with substantially different content from that in the original AfD, opening a new AfD would probably be more appropriate if the deletion should be put up for discussion.--17jiangz1 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
