Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Singapore

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. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah Lian

Ah lian was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-30. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah lian.

Ah Lian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a Chinese street dictionary article. It describes what Ah Lian is, and then it lists external links. No notability. It's just a dictionary definition. Diez2 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A premise of this afd has an error. "Ah Lian" is commonly used in english language text. (Google 64k hits [1]) It originates as a romanization of Chinese. --Vsion 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The artices does have OR, POV, and accuracy issues. Recreating it later may be another option. --Vsion 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete I stumbled across this one earlier when looking through the articles tagged as WP:OR. The term is notable within a fairly large area but that really doesn't change the fact that it is just a slang term. Wikipedia contains many such slang terms so that in itself is not reason enough. However the article is not sourced good enough and if you remove the obvious original research really there isn't enough left to warrant an article on its own. Delete and make a new article summing up these terms without spreading it across several articles. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because a word is notable does not mean it belongs in the English Wikipedia. But as I stated it is only a weak delete mainly based on the considerable number of Google hits for this. MartinDK 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR slang dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced dictdef. Kimchi.sg 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Mallanox 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Keep, existence established at previous nomination. This appears to be largely linguistic for now, but may be expandible. Septentrionalis 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move or Transwiki per what's already been said. --Wizardman 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete--only if Ah Beng is deleted too. 38.100.34.2 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 wasKeep.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Awards

Star Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Looks like an award show run by a TV broadcaster for people who work for that same company. Google hardly returns anything once you've filtered out the company's own webpages (what remains are news snippets and similar).

I am also nominating the following: Star Awards 1995, Star Awards 1997, Star Awards 1998, Star Awards 1999, Star Awards 2000, and Star Awards 2003 because they redirect to Star Awards. And Star Awards 2001, Star Awards 2002, Star Awards 2004, Star Awards 2005, and Star Awards 2006 because they contain a subset of the information in Star Awards. --Lijnema 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Star Awards has an article for the fact that it is the most prominent award in the Singaporean mass entertainment arena. That it is basically a "self-rewarding" award does little to dent its avid following and the buzz it generates amongst the masses. May I just point out that "Star Awards" itself may not garner plenty of sources online, because it is actually the English name of an award for Chinese-language productions.--Huaiwei 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all except orphaned redirects. Notable event in the country. Google in English returns more than 50,000 hits including many press reports, Googling the Chinese title returns over 79,000 hits. --Vsion 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as above, and it is a rather huge event in Singapore.le petit vagabond 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Keep the main article if it is actually a major event. However, the statistics tables should be dropped per WP:NOT. DB (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the subarticles (individual years). They are just redirects to the main article. If info is added about individual years, it can all go in the main article. DB (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as major Singapore award event by dominant Singapore media company but delete all the subarticles as per DB above. There's gotta be a better, more visually friendly way of arranging data than the current charts too, but I'll leave that the article editors Bwithh 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep main. I see no problem with the redirects, especially if there's a possibility of more detailed articles down the line. 23skidoo 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Star Awards is like the Emmy of Singapore. It is the highest category of television awards in the country, and has been a very popular event in the Chinese television scene. There are more hits in Chinese as the name is in Chinese not English. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I still think (if the final verdict is keep, which is looks like now) that it at least needs some external sources, and either move all results to the main, or the individual years, seems to be doule in some places now. --Lijnema
  • Comment I concur that the current presentation does look unweldy, and I appeal for ideas on how to better present the facts. Keeping individual articles for each year's awards was one way to keep the information sanely manageable, so perhaps we may wish to keep the non-redirect ones for now.--Huaiwei 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It might be a good idea to remove the table from Star Awards and keep information about winners on the individual pages, and have the main page just contain text about the awards, but not the winners (perhaps just naming a few who've won a lot)? --Lijnema 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The awards seem well-known enough to warrant this article. The individual articles per year may be unneccessary, but any important information could be included in the main article. S-man64 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Terence Ong and others, WP:BIAS would apply here as well I would think. RFerreira 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, this is a very important event for Singapore's entertainment circle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 November 2006.

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.

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Urban Explorers

Not notable website, Internet group. Vsion 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, for disclosure, this website/Internet group (SUE) was mentioned in a newspaper article [2] in three paragraphs:"On a smaller scale, there is online community Singapore Urban Explorer, ...., dedicated to discovering lesser-known sites in the city, ... The website has over 400 registered members ...". I believe the news article is authentic. In addition, the group does organise some activities outside cyberspace, physically exploring Marsiling jungle, etc. Nonetheless, I don't think the group is notable. --Vsion 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB even if someone verifies the media report, since it requires two coverages. MER-C 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. Nice-looking article, though; notability is my only concern. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Girl Shrine

Taking a prod removed article to AFD. The place seems to exist as evidenced by the external links but the article makes no claim to notability. I'm afraid it will be doomed to stub-hood forever since other wiki's are hardly reliable sources of information and it's unlikely that the shrine will prompt a thorough investingation to its origins. Axem Titanium 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Google test for "German Girl Shrine" yields around 60 hits. "Mystery Girl of Ubin", the other name provided, nets around 25 hits, 6 being significantly unique. Also I've recently become aware of this policy proposal which argues that perhaps this article should be merged into whatever regional article this place has, if it's deemed to be notable enough. Axem Titanium 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. --InShaneee 16:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but if it is kept, it should be re-named. German Girl Shrine is far too vague and ambiguous. I dont know what it should be re-named to, but, something better. — Gary Kirk // talk! 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikitravel. This is not encyclopedic, but might be notable for someone visiting the area. Vectro 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. We're not a directory. --Coredesat 07:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle Parking in Singapore

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a webspace provider. Resolute 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is an interesting and useful article that is totally neutral and factual, and lends itself to continual updates and high verifiability. I cannot find anything in WP:not an indiscriminate collection of information [3](7 points) and WP:not a webspace provider [4](3 points) in WP:NOT that it directly offends. MAYBE "not an FAQ". On that note, other lists of such localised usefulness and unique temporal quality does exist in Wikipedia (example: List of radio stations in South Carolina). Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment btw, being a noobie, i would like to know why is wiki not an "indiscriminate collection of information". With a nearly limitless supply of writers and storage, why can it not hold anything that is neutral and factual (and better yet, encouragingly community-editable). Yes, even a list of Coke machines in New York :) Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Oh God, the capped heads! EVula 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment sorry - noobie qn - what's a capped head? Johannuar 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recury 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what next, a list of Coke machines in New York? NawlinWiki 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Gah, WP:BEANS! What have you done? :-P EVula 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't an internet directory. The article is on par with a list of all the hawker center stalls in Singapore that sell vegetarian food. -Amatulic 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, and a directory. Edison 23:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The motorcycle parking situation in Singapore is deplorable. Wiki is the perfect venue for motorcyclists to edit/update places that we can and cannot park. In particular, we want to know those establishments that don't value us enough as customers to let us park in their garage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Suggest transfer to http://www.sgwiki.com --Vsion 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment suggestion taken. thanks. Johannuar 07:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft, WP:NOT a directory. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a great topic for something other than an encyclopedia article, like maybe a blog. WillyWonty 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald Kids

unreferenced NN-neologism DesertSky85451 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN local neologism.--Húsönd 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomTheRanger 05:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. The creator has "withdrawn" the article. utcursch | talk 08:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy Goh Nair

Procedural nomination. Speedy A7 was applied, but was contested and this warrants a further look. User:Chandrannair and User:Ivygohnair have been editing each other's articles so this constitutes vanity regardless (getting someone close to you to edit your article is as much vanity as doing it yourself), but I'm neutral for now (even though this article doesn't seem to be). ColourBurst 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

delete - The original editor was User:Ivygohnair so it was marked as a vanity article for violating WP:AUTO. There was even a box on the talk page that the subject of the article edited wikipedia. It was also in category:notable wikipedians. I don't know what happened to those edits, but here comes User:Chandrannair claiming that it is not a vanity article because he/she uploaded it. Mapetite526 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Question:CSD A7 is "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites.". Is that the reason for the AfD too? According to Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines "As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." Edward Wakelin 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• A comment from User Talk:Chandrannair:

"Thank you. I am about to cite two reviews of her book. Just uploaded the one by ST from the Singapore New Nation and will shortly do one by Ian Gill which appeared in the Asian Wall Street Journal, 29 aug 1981. This can surely be checked in the archives as the Asian Wall Street Journal is not an insignificant journal. Please give me a few minutes to upload this."

This is from the author of the article. ColourBurst 21:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The author is the subject's husband, by the way. Not sure if anybody noticed that. Mapetite526 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We have never tried to hide this.Ivygohnair 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's user:chandrannair again. It is true that I have come into the fray to defend Ivy Goh Nair from speedy deletion and that her last page was actually uploaded by me. I think if you want to apply the "vanity" label because one person edits the other and vice versa, it would only be fair to examine each case on its own merit. Both user:ivygohnair and user:chandrannair are established figures in the field that is being discussed: ie Singapore literature and writing; secondly, it should be considered in their favour that they have used their own names and not fictitious names as user names; If this had been the case, the problem wouldn't have arisen. Therefore I think there is much merit in User: Edward Wakelin remarks above and that an author's conflict of interest is by itself not a basis for deletion. In our case, "conflict of interest" is hardly applicable as we are both extremely qualified to comment on each other's professional skills as well as the professional skills of any other Singaporean writer or poet. I think the main criterion that should be applied is whether Ivy Goh Nair is notable in Wikipedia standards, whether the material is original (which it shouldn't be) and whether there are reliable and verifiable sources. I have cited various sources which are both reliable and verifiable (the two reviews in a Singaporean and an international newspaper) which clearly states that Ivy Goh Nair had significantly contributed to the history of Singapore, by her book "Singapore Accent". The article does not contain any "original" matter as such.

I sincerely hope that in the end, justice will prevail and "ivy goh nair" will not be deleted. If it is, it would be only fair that the reasons for such a deletion should be clearly spelled out by Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chandrannair (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Hello, this is user:ivygohnair. I agree with everything user:chandrannair has said above. I would just like to add (in order to dispell the notion that all I do is to edit chandrannair and vice versa) that the editing that I have done (in a fairly short period) has been quite considerable for a sixty year old like me who is not as agile as younger folks on the internet. I have added substantially to the Introduction to Singapore literature and have edited some other writer's pages. I have the intention of editing pages for other older notables in the field, like Goh Poh Seng, Robert Yeo, Lee Tzu Pheng,and Kirpal Singh (which do not exist yet in Wikipedia) and I have already written to some of them (yes they are all my friends, ("conflict of interest"?) to send me their bios) I also intend to add to Arthur Yap's and Edwin Thumboo's exisitng pages. Yes, I know (knew) them too, and each one of these notables would probably edit for user:chandrannair and user:ivygohnair, if only they were internet savy :-)

Hey, it's me again: user: ivygohnair: Before I hit the sack, a thought just occured to me which I must absolutely share with you. If we follow some of the arguments of certain wikipedia editors above, Sylvia Plath would have been accused of "conflict of interest" if she had written about her husband, Ted Hughes and vice versa. Good Nite.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivygohnair (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Comment: Let's be nice to newcomers, as per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This seems like a case where newcomers not knowing the "rules" here. An author of 1 bestseller may be notable enough to get an article in an encyclopedia. Perhaps this biography needs some fixing, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Deleting is probably unnecessary. --PFHLai 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Help! how do you "sign" in when you make comments on this page? (Newcomer:User:ivygohnair)Ivygohnair 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I found out how! thanks User:PFHLai! Ivygohnair 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, It's me again, sorry! Us seniors have too much time on our hands and won't sit on them. BTW I have been spending time reading up on some of the rules of Wikepedia. My impression is that most of them are guidelines and there should be some flexibility in their application. This is surely in the spirit of freedom of Wikipedia (which btw I think is a GREAT idea). There are clear-cut vanity cases, I am sure, where friends put friends up who are not notable. And the rule about not "knowing" the person you are editing should be a general guideline to prevent these cases. Now having said that, how on earth would you avoid the fact that a writer from Singapore (which is such a small country) would probably know another Singaporean writer he is editing? I just finished editing a page on Goh Poh Seng. I know Poh Seng personally from way back, so can you apply the "knowlege" guideline on me? Similiarly, when I first stumbled on Wikipedia, I was immediately struck by the gap that exists regarding older writers who do not seem to be well represented. My mission was to try and redress this and User: Chandrannair was just one of the notables I was going to edit. Should I be prevented from editing him, just because I know him intimately? Where is there a conflict of interest if the material uploaded fulfilled Wikipedia standards? Similiarly, when my page was threatened with immediate removal, should not User: Chandrannair who was also an expert in the matter intervene to try and save the page, just because he knows me ? Aren't there many cases in history when sons and daughters write biographies of the parents; and wives and husbands of their spouses? Thanks for listening to me. I guess I better sign off properly now.Ivygohnair 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. I have just completed a page on Lee Tzu Pheng who is undoubtedly one of the best known poets in Singapore's history. Her best known poem "My Country and My People" has inspired many of us Singaporeans, old and young!Ivygohnair 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read her book, though I'm not from Singapore and it's better than a lot of the stuff that makes it to the NY Times best seller list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.91.147.159 (talk • contribs).

–New to all this in wikipedia... I think the mood to delete is harsh. This is a user who seems to have made a definite impact in a small place, and is trying to popularise the creative energies of Singapore. Let us be more forgiving! Besides it looks there is actual published reviews as testament to the work. Mcporpington 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mcporpington Sorry I meant to add to my comment above that the article should NOT be deleted! Mcporpington 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mcporpington

Hi - I am saddened to read such biting, petty comments and suggestions about deleting this article. This person has clearly contributed to Singapore literature and has also been cited by others. signed - Phillygal27

I did my military service in Singapore and I love the country. I vote to KEEP. I do not see any conflict of interest hereJean-Louis77 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again: Below is the full review of my book from the Asian Wall Street Journal.

AWSJ Review

Other Reviews: Other Reviews

According to Wikipedia's notability rules,if a book is not easily available,it would help if there are reliable reviews on the internet.

As I understand it, this is now a AfD (articles for deletion) debate so the main criterion for deletion should be "notability" according to wikipedia's rules.

BTW the Wikipedia guidelines also advises editors not to use words like "vanity" as this is unneccesarily harsh and unfair to "newbies" like me who may not know all the ropes. Thanks for listening.Ivygohnair 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Ignorance of the rules is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Vyse 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. utcursch | talk 06:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is a comment I made on User: Utcursch discussion page. Which he had replied to (see below): "Hey I just discovered that you hate the caste system and want to delete the "List of Famous Nairs" very badly. It leads me to wonder whether your "delete" vote on my page was not a conflict of interest since my name is nair. Believe me neither my hubby nor I are believers in the caste system, otherwise he would not have married me! But having said that I was puzzled that a "friendly" (as you describe yourself) admin would vote "not notable enough" (without giving any explanation whatsoever) for a book which was favourably reviewed by both the local and international press and caused quite a stir when it was first published because it was one of the first books considered "critical" of Singapore.Ivygohnair 17:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)"Ivygohnair 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, someone has deleted a favourable vote here. Admin please investigate!Ivygohnair 09:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Withdrawal of Article Ivy Goh Nair

As the current page of Ivy Goh Nair was uploaded by me, I wish to withdraw the article. This debate has degenerated to such a level that users are resorting to deleting positive comments and votes. Admin please can you do the neccesary follow-up?Chandrannair 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Chandrannair's decision and under the circumstances I wish that my article be withdrawn. I wish to apologise to all the users who have written favourable comments and to thank them for their support. They can find me any time through google and the other search engines.Ivygohnair 14:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)_ ______________________________________________________________________________________________

• From Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board [5]: "Pure vanity, person is non-notable."

It seems that some users think that this debate should go on even after the above withdrawal request. User Utcursch (please see the discussion/talk page of his user page) is one of them and not only that, he tries to rally admins and other users to his cause by extending the debate to the Wikipedia talki: SGpedians forum which is peopled mostly by younger Singaporeans who may not have been born when my book was written. I therefore reproduce below his post on my user talk page and my reply:

"Dear Ms. Ivy Goh Nair, I indeed hate the caste system very much (I'm neither Dalit nor Brahmin -- I am anti-caste person). But that was not the reason I voted "Delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair. Had that been the reason, I would have probably moved many other articles to deletion: C. Sankaran Nair, Chandran Nair, Kavalappara Narayanan Nair etc.(have you never heard of the phrase "going for the soft belly?":-)81.249.80.83 08:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Writing a book doesn't make a personal notable enough for Wikipedia. The fact that Ivy Goh Nair was written by your husband makes it less verifiable (please see Wikipedia:Autobiography). The only criteria for voting delete was non-notability -- please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't claim that I have excellent knowledge about journalism and literature in Singapore, but Wikipedia:Search engine test indicates that you're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia: [1][2]. Most of the few search results that I got are from personal sites such as eurekster.com, ivygohnair.tk, brinkster.com etc.

I have dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board -- the discussion page for Wikipedians from Singapore and Wikipedians who are writing about Singapore-related topics. I have invited them to to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair. Just in case the article gets deleted, I will suggest that the content of the article be merged to User:Ivygohnair (see Wikipedia:Userfication).

I hope that this issue doesn't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. Please don't take this as an insult. Everyday, Wikipedia gets lots of articles about various people, all of whom may not be notable enough (emphasis on "enough"). Thanks. utcursch | talk 08:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I don't know why this debate is persisting as the request has been made to redraw the article by the editors themselves. By the way, Chandran Nair did not write the book. The book was a collection of columns, I wrote for the business times under the pseudonym of B J WU. All this is verifiable! It shows how prejudiced, false and ingnorant your assumptions are. As an admin, I am asking you to restore the favourable comment that was deleted by someone just before we made the decision to withdraw the article. Let's see whether you will do that instead of searching for needles in a haystack to use against people you seem to have a grudge against. I read up Wikipedia rules and while admins are greatly appreciated for the work they do for the site (I am sure you yourself have done a lot) they have an even greater reponsiblity to be fair and even handed . . . . ."Ivygohnair 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Ivygohnair 07:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. Noting that I've participated in this AfD, closing on the basis of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR given that this has been left open for more than a week. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong Entertainment Centre

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep major entertainment centre in Singapore. I believe it houses the only ice skating rink in the country. --Vsion 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain the local context. The name "Shopping Center" can be quite misleading. But these "shopping centers" are actually major service, commercial, and entertainment hub, located at the center of a large residential district serving hundreds of thousands of people. These are not just business corporations. The supermarket in the mall is a business, but the "center" is the hub for many activities in that community. You may still think it is not worthy for wikipedia, that is a fair opinion. But WP:CORP does not apply here because it is not a purely corporation or business entity. --Vsion 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Any source on the not-for-profit activities? --Nehwyn 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a need for not-for-profit activities in this mall for it not to be classified as a company or a corporation? Now since you insist on using WP:CORP, kindly tell us just what is the name of this "company" or "corporation", who is its CEO, where is it listed, and where is it corporatised?--Huaiwei 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of non-business activity has been mentioned by another editor. Since that may be an important fact to include in the article, I have asked whether there is any reference on them. As for WP:CORP, please keep in mind that, despite being called "corp", it does not apply to corporations or companies only, but more in general to commercial and economic entities. --Nehwyn 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part of WP:CORP implies that it's rules applies to all commercial and economic entities? Kindly quote the exact line which explicitely states it as such.--Huaiwei 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first line in the page. --Nehwyn 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"a product, company, corporation or other economic entity". Explain in what way is this a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity"?--Huaiwei 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article "has a net lettable retail floor area of ...". Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to chains. This is a company and the letting of space is economic activity. GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Only major shopping mall serving Jurong East New Town, a major public housing establishment in the western part of densely-populated Singapore. —Sengkang 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, IMM Building is the other major mall in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, oops forgot about it. —Sengkang 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep, mall has a huge ice skating rink and it's one of the very few major malls in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per above Leidiot 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Jurong Entertainment Centre is the first major shopping centre in the West prior to the arrival of Jurong Point, and thus served as the main focal point then. Jurong East Central is the location for the Regional Centre in the Western Region, but the delay in development plans for the area meant the centre remained the sole shopping mall and largest commercial entity there, although it pales in terms of size and tenent mix in comparison to many contemporary malls. Still, this does not mean it has no place wikipedia just because it is past its prime.--Huaiwei 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Huaiwei. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Vsion. SchmuckyTheCat 15:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.--Tdxiang 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, no real reason presented for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 11:24, 15 October 2006
• Delete Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to other businesses. WP:CORP is the relevant standard. There are no citations in the article or above to independent sources to establish that it meets the WP:CORP standards. (I.e., the nomination was exactly a valid reason for deletion.) GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The gist of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is to act against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods. Taking the sentence "a product, company, corporation or other economic entity" literally as meaning every single entity with any remote sense of "economic" activity will result in Human being deleted as well, for who else is responsible for and engages so actively in it? I do not think it that difficult for anyone to take a step back and realise just what is the core intent of wikipolicies and guidelines before attempting to blanket-apply them all over without much consideration for common sense.--Huaiwei 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out to you on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Application_of_this_guideline, your understanding of this particular guideline is fallacious. The gist of WP:CORP is to set notability criteria for economic entities, so as to avoid non-notable economic entities showing up in Wikipedia. There is another guideline which acts, as you say, "against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods", and that is WP:SPAM. --Nehwyn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Huaiwei and other above, the article looks fine to me. RFerreira 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sim Lim Square

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability given. --Nehwyn 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, that was fast - just as your were nominating it for deletion, I was actually adding a reference to a two-page broadsheet newspaper feature report on the mall that appeared just three days ago on Singapore's computer history. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the article states that it is the "most established IT mall [in the country]". Why did the nominator choose to ignore that? The place is very notable, well-known to foreign visitors also. --Vsion 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not ignore that - I just do not consider that (unsourced) statement to meet the WP:CORP criteria, as specified in my nomination. --Nehwyn 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, Sim Lim square is notable. I will try to find sources. Vectro 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any success? And please note, the fact that the square is notable, does not automatically imply that the venues on it are. --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the article already. It may be difficult to add more without a physical presence in Singapore. Also, if the square is notable, then it makes sense to mention vendors in the Square's article; the vendeors only have to show separate notability if they want their own article. See e.g., WP:CORP, WP:C&E, and WP:BIO for examples of this principle. Cheers, Vectro 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has several non-trivial published sources independent of the mall. Can you expand on your reasoning why it still fails WP:CORP? - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that WP:CORP states that media sources should be centred on the subject, and not cover it peripherally, such as on a survey of prices. Two of the references in the article fall into the "trivial coverage" category. The other two, on the other hand, seem to be legitimate. --Nehwyn 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep lah. —Sengkang 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"lah" is hardly a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Sim Lim is a very well known shopping mall in Signapore, with tons of computer and electrical stores. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... but any claim to Wikipedia notability? --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the article for goodness sake... Leidiot 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"for goodness sake" can hardly be considered a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate.  :) --Nehwyn 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, its a well-referenced article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A mall which is clearly well known in a country satisfies wikipedia notability. Satisfying an Italian hermit across the planet isnt a wikipedian criteria.--Huaiwei 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the Suntec City Mall entry above. - SpLoT 14:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, not that "if X, then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you apparantly applied the same formular when nominating them for deletion.--Huaiwei 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominated each article individually. Group nominations are possible under Wikipedia policies, but this is not the case. An individual nomination, like this one, is best evaluated individually, based on the article it refers to, and not on others. --Nehwyn 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So how did you come to the conclusion that people arent exercising their votes "individually"? Just because the same logic applies in one topic happens to apply in another doesent mean it is a collective vote. Mind sharing with us how different each of your "individual" nominations are, then?--Huaiwei 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather assume good faith and hypothesise that no "anti-national conspiracy theory" has been formulated, and that no reaction to that has been discussed out of Wikipedia channels on the concern that said discussion would have been unsuitable to the general public. As for nominations, nominations are termed "individual" if each article has a separate nomination; they are termed "multiple" if a group of related articles is listed in one single nomination. Personally I prefer the former option, as each article should be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Vsion SchmuckyTheCat 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per Vsion.--Tdxiang 04:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as mentioned above by many this is a notable place. Yamaguchi先生 10:56, 15 October 2006

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.

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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suntec City Mall

Shopping mall. The only claim to notability, being the largest in Singapore, has expired since a larger one was built. --Nehwyn 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's appeared on an international Emmy Award-winning television show (The Amazing Race 3), which makes it notable enough. – Chacor 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any source to that claim? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Amazing Race 3 Official Site - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Suntec is the second largest mall in Singapore and houses the world's largest fountain. It was in the same complex as where the IMF/World Bank meetings were held. It has international mention by several sources and definitely notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As written below, the largest fountain claim is contested, and no independent source has still been found to resolve it. As for the Singapore 2006 event, according to its own article, that has been hosted in the nearby Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (built by the same company, but not a mall). Any source on the fact that it was specifically the mall, and not the congress centre, that hosted the World Bank meetings? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, second largest mall in Singapore, sister building of Suntec Singapore where Singapore 2006 is held. Extensive coverage on mall by Channel NewsAsia during that period [6] proves this. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article you mention states that a drop in sales occurred during the Singapore 2006 event due to security restrictions because of the meetings going on nearby. Hardly a claim to notability per se. --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous. This is the first afd I've seen, where the nomination statement itself prove that the subject is notable. --Vsion 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I meant to say that currently there is no notability claim, although it may have been notable in the past (when it held the "title" of largest mall). :) --Nehwyn 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that many hold by a "once notable, always notable" attitude. Certainly, most guidelines seem to take that for granted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any specific statement on that? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per diablo.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Terrnece and Mailer diablo. Wow, finally a mall that has something resembling a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Possible withdraw AfD: It has been brought to attention that this venue holds the world's largest fountain. This is more than an acceptable claim to notability. The article makes no mention of that, so in its current form is not notable; however, were that fact to be added to it, I would happily withdraw this AfD. I have tried Googling for it, but the claim seems to be contested by another fountain in Illinois, and the Guinness page about the fountain is no longer supported by the official Guinness of Records website (Google has a cache copy). Anyone with the actual book able to help? --Nehwyn 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Book of Records (2005) still assert this as world's largest. [7] - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a Singapore vs USA contested record, the fact that the Singapore book of Records supports Singapore is not really a surprise. Any independent source? --Nehwyn 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per above. --- RockMFR 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a silly nom. · XP · 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; Chinese: 坚决保留; Hokkien: Mai4 dir3 siow2 lah4. —Sengkang 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, do write your motivations in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Hosted World Bank meetings Leidiot 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Singapore 2006 page, that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 11:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, asserts its notability well enough. It seems that the nominator has been trying to get Singapore shopping mall articles deleted. Do I smell WP:POINT here? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I smell something too...But I'd rather assume good faith here. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated them all together because they were brought to my attention all together after I nominated one. As for the rest, I too smell something fishy: it seems to me that far too many of the "keep" comments come from Singaporean editors, and it is conceivable that they may have contacted one another to try and lobby the debate page... although again, WP:AGF applies, so let's assume that is not the case. --Nehwyn 15:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And so I suppose you expect most of the "Keep" comments to come from Italians, for something less fishy? It is a no-brainer why most of comments are coming from Singapore. And if you wondering why most of them are "Keep" votes, have you considered the fact that not every mall in Singapore has got an article? How sure are you that I will not question an article about a truly insignificant Singaporean mall?--Huaiwei 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer if comments on the inclusion or deletion criteria for any given article were not based on the editors' area of residence, but only on the article itself. For an example of what kind of reasoning I'd prefer not to see, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre, where the deletion of the article has been defined by one editor as "a great insult to all Singaporeans". I wish this kind of reasoning would not become a factor in Wikipedia debates. My concern is not really that being a resident in the area might colour a single editor's judgement on differentiating between local notability and Wikipedia notability (although that is certainly possible); my concern is that some editors with a common interest or characteristic (in this case, residence) may have rallied privately to "lobby" the debate in disregard to the Wikipedia public. But again, let's assume good faith and deem it not the case. --Nehwyn 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One of the most ridiculous nominations I have yet seen. And I do also sense something fishy in this multi-nomination of Singaporean malls on no other criteria than physical size. So VivoCity, a mall a week old, gets to be kept while all other malls who were around far longer and made a far bigger social impact gets deleted?--Huaiwei 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, there's no way that only 1 Singaporean mall can have an article at any given moment. That's certainly not the case with New York, or any other major city. - SpLoT 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because any arguments otherwise border on ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Amazing Race 3 and Singapore 2006 to its name. Ridiculous to favour VivoCity, which only has size to its name, over this. Could be expanded, though. - Ouishoebean 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed for the AR3 mention, but as far as the Singapore 2006 page, please note that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Suntec City Mall is one of the most recognisable retail icon in Singapore. Apparently this nomination is done without familiarity with Singapore, above all, the mall is well-visited by tourists due to the tax rebate scheme that made the venue popular among visitors. As per abovementioned, the mall is noteable internationally, represented in a couple of advertising regimes to promote Singapore as a tourist destination and retail haven. The corporate site: Suntec City Mall. Absurb nomination. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hildanknight has withdrawn his Keep vote. The original vote and reason for withdrawal are available in the page history.
• To substantiate my post earlier: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), a Singaporean government statutory board cites that Suntec City is one of the largest commercial developments in Singapore to date at [8]. Suntect REIT, developer of the Suntec chain of commercial complexes, cites that Suntec City Mall is Singapore's largest shopping mall at [9], further stating that Strong branding of the Suntec name and Fountain of Wealth is recognized domestically and internationally, and Fountain of Wealth attracts half a million visitors a year, while quality tenant base including oreign institutions, prominent local corporations and multinational companies provides enhanced stability of rental income. The Mall along with the exhibition complex, was awarded two FIABCI Prix d' Excellence awards for excellence in all aspects of real estate development (Overall winner and Commercial / Retail winner) in 1999 and the Outstanding Contribution to Tourism award in 1998 from Singapore Tourism Board. The site too states that the mall is a one-stop shopping, fashion, dining, recreation and entertainment destination that attracts about 24 million visitors a year. Notable enough for you? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this is what a Wikipedia reference should look like. Kudos to Silvester. The Suntec reference cannot be considered "independent", but the URA reference and the awards definitely are. Personally, I think that if the AR3 and this one are added to the article, that would be referencing it enough for a speedy keep. =) --Nehwyn 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Nehwyn considers a Singaporean statutory board acceptably "independent", while a publication called the Singapore Book of Records (2005) is not.--Huaiwei 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the URA is a governmental entity, not part of Suntec, and thus considered independent. Suntec, having built the venue, cannot be considered an "independent source" about the venue itself. As far as the Fountain record goes, on the other hand, the Singapore Book of Records statement currently is contested, and the Guinness World Records (generally considered the standard authority on world records) has withdrawn mention of the Fountain of Wealth as the world's largest fountain about a week ago. They might in fact be checking the claim, for all we know. As soon as the record is re-listed by Guinness, I'd say that will solve the problem. --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, even though this entry has been withdraw by Guinness, it once appeared in the book for a period of time. Even if it is disputed, the fountain is still notable, and is still the largest outside North America. Is that notable for you? Singapore Book of Records is an independent source and what's wrong with it? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I don't see the point of this deletion request. If you delete Suntec City Mall, then you might as well delete all other pages on shopping malls in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann City and Junction 8 Shopping Centre. Unkx80 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get us started on that.  ;-) --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being the largest mall in Singapore is a valid claim for notability; this nomination is a bit dumbfounding. Yamaguchi先生 10:55, 15 October 2006

Note: Suntec City is not the largest mall in Singapore; that claims does not apply here. --Nehwyn 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw deletion nomination - Given the fact that deletion debate has brought forward new sources, allowing for sufficient improvement of the article to the point that it now provides satisfactory evidence of notability, in the absence of further dispute, as the original nominator I change my stance to keep and request early closure of this debate page. =) --Nehwyn 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 - as has been adequately and coherently pointed out below, despite mass armwaving actual multiple credible third-party sources (i.e. not press releases or passing mentions) are conspicuous by their absence.

The majority for keeping is rendered insubstantial by the fact that a significant proportion of its editors have no reasoning, faulty reasoning (claiming inclusion as an indicator of notability among the least bizarre but nonetheless incorrect) or empty assertions with nothing to back them up. I expect this to be controversial but evidence and policy, not votes, is what decides AfDs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong Point Shopping Centre

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable shopping mall. --Nehwyn 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, one of the largest shopping malls in Singapore. Just needs a little more cleaning-up. —Sengkang 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok lah, reference added liow lah, satisfied or not? Not happy then boh ban huat loh....Lol —Sengkang 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, write your motivations in English! This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:STYLE: Article have strong tie with the region, and the use of dialect is understandable. Look up the meaning if you are looking so much forward to know what it meant. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dialect is fine, as long as it is an English dialect. "boh ban huat" is hardly English. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then that is just too bad for you. I dont supposed you know what that means, or do you?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has English discussions. For article and discussion in other languages, other Wikipedias exist. If an article or comment is posted in another language on the English Wikipedia, it is fair to ask for a translation into English. --Nehwyn 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Jurong Point is one of the major shopping malls in the western area of Singapore. It is one of the largest malls as well, the articles is in need of a cleanup. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article, and both of your arguments, are in need of cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Neither you nor the article have cited any, not even one to support your assertion that this is a major shopping mall. Uncle G 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just like any other mall anywhere in the world - architecturally insignificant depite the articles' POV claim about 'spectacular' skylight - seems to be promotional. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And I say this as one who lives in the area. Notable in the local context only. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:V, and previous consensus on malls. Barno 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've cleaned up the article already. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... but you haven't cited any sources. Re-arranging the deck-chairs won't help make a case for keeping the article. Sources will. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this article will be a great insult to all Singaporeans. This mall is no less notable than Tampines Mall, Suntec City Mall, Marina Square, Takashimaya, Centrepoint Shopping Centre, Sim Lim Square, Raffles City, VivoCity or Shaw House and Centre; all of which have articles. Instead of deleting this article, improve it, addressing any concerns. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Instead of making fallacious arguments, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, as already requested above. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the article would be "a great insult to all Singaporeans"? You mean this mall has relevance as a national monument for Singapore? If so, please accept my apologies in proposing this deletion, but make sure that statement is included in the article. As for the rest of your argument, as it has been remarked already "if X then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in Wikipedia deletion debates, except for reporting other articles in need of a prod tag. I did propose deletion for some of them; the others did have a claim to notability. --Nehwyn 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. (was delete, see below) If the page defenders want to make a run at establishing notability, I would give them a day or two to do it.) Page fans, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses, you need to come up with at least a few non-trivial articles about the mall in reliable sources. The easiest way is to go to your local library and ask a librarian to help you search newspaper records, or just call the mall and see if they have a press clipping file you can review. TheronJ 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Update: after waiting "the few days" mentioned above, I think there are a lot more reasons to delete. I've explained them below. TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see more reason to keep this article than the article on Jurong Entertainment Centre. Firstly, it is a more popular mall than Jurong Entertainment Centre. Secondly, Jurong Point had been mentioned on local papers as they are expanding it and building an interchange under it and a Condominium, (The Centris)Andersenhwl 12:27 14 October 2006 (UTC +8)

Note: The comment above is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again... then "if X then Y" reasoning is not generally considered a valid point in a deletion debate, which should be based on the article in question. Your second point, on the other hand, may meet one of the WP:CORP criteria... any sources for that? --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Sengkang. 700,000 sq feet, yardstick of other major shopping malls in Singapore. (Business Times Report) Try and beat that! ;) - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've worked places with parking lots bigger than 700,000 square feet, and those lots don't get WP articles. Why should size matter unless the mall is notable specifically for being "the world's largest"? I don't see that we should include every nation's largest mall, every nation's tallest building, etc. unless there are verifiable third-party sources featuring that fact. A local newspaper's article saying "mall being expanded" is of little weight by itself, as every mall has probably gotten a two-paragraph blurb in its local paper. Is this one Singapore's largest or just "yardstick of other ... malls"? Barno 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the population density of Singapore? - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this datum to Wikipedia inclusion policies? Barno 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The small land area of Singapore limits the size of architectures, which make Jurong Point one of the largest and most notable in Singapore. Perhaps Jurong Point is insignificant compared to American or whatever standards, but are you saying that we are supposed to neglect local standards when editing articles relating to local events/places and adopt only American standards? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• No. I'm saying we are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia standards, including verifiable significance rather than whether a couple of local people claim importance without evidence. Note that at least one other editor claims to be from there and claims it's not more significant than other shopping centers. Freddy's General Store might be the most important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota, but that "local standard" isn't evidence of Wikipedia importance. Otherwise WP would be swamped in articles for a hundred thousand malls "one of the largest and most notable in XXX" for which nothing encyclopedic could be documented. Barno 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• All well and good, albeit we arent talking about an "important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota".--Huaiwei 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Major shopping mall. --Vsion 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not limit yourself to "major mall"; give a motivation why the article meets WP:CORP.  :) --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. This article is not about the owner or management of the mall, most people don't really care or know who the owner is. This is about a public place, with tens of thousands of people visiting there each day. It has medical clinics and a public library, etc, and is major part of public amenities in Jurong. --Vsion 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tens of thousands of people visit the mall every day..." - sources? The problem with this article has been clearly stated early on by Uncle G - sources are needed! Without sources, anyone can say that about any place and there's no way to verify what they are saying is correct. If I were more skeptical and hadn't seen the place myself, I'd say the page writer is just making it up. "Major" and "many people visit this place" are what you can hear at the kopitiam ("coffee shop", for non-Singaporeans); (un)fortunately, Wikipedia is not the kopitiam anyone can edit - sources have to be provided. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about? The nomination said the subject is not-notable, which is false. The source to these facts is already given in the "external link" before the nomination. If the nominator missed it, and someone had to highlight the infor, it is perfectly alright and that is what I was trying to do above. On the other hand, if one editor doubt another's comment for no apparent reason and don't bother to do his/her own research or even follow up with the links, that is not very constructive.--Vsion 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The "external link" you mention as a reference for your statements is the shopping centre's own website. I did not miss it; I merely believe that cannot be used as an independent source about the shopping centre itself. --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of "independent source" would you like to see? If I march up to that mall and snap a photo of the crowds, is that "independent" enough in your books?--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's in my books is of little importance; it is Wikipedia:Independent_sources and WP:V which count in this case. I still think th official website of a commercial venue cannot be considered an independent source for claims about that venue. --Nehwyn 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do expect my question to be answered thou.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note sure I follow you on the last one... doesn't anyone? --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I arent sure what "note sure" means either, but I can overlook that.--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to say is that I haven't understood why you stated that you expect your questions answered. If by that you mean that you feel I haven't answered "what kind of independent source would you like to see"?, I should probably rephrase my answer then: "The kind of independent source I would like to see is the one which would satisfy the definition of independet source found at Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A venue's official website cannot be defined as "independent" from that same venue." Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. I asked about the acceptability of my own photos. Do Wikipedia:Independent_sources make any mention of that?--Huaiwei 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim was "tens of thousands of people"... So no, I don't think a single photograph can confirm that number. We need factual, written references by third-party sources. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you are making the assumption that my photo is meant to support that particular claim. Where did I make this association? Second, your statement "factual, written references by third-party sources" suggests that I am not an independent source, and that only "factual, writtern sources" are permitted. Is this true? Please point out the relevant wikipolicy which explicitely states as such.--Huaiwei 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What claim would your photograph be considered a source for? As for my statement on the need for third-party sources, if persons provide direct evidences (in this case, a photograph) of a certain state of affairs, those evidences may be used as Wikipedia sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher. If you edit the article to insert your photograph, the burden of evidence for that edit lies with you (the user who has made the edit).. --Nehwyn 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if sources can be provided; otherwise, Delete. Vectro 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of verification from reliable sources.--Isotope23 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per various reasons above. --- RockMFR 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Leidiot 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, be more specific as to which reasons motivate you. Thanks!  :) --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and attempt to expand Matthuxtable 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I beg to differ in opinion from Awyong. I live in Hougang, yet I know this mall very well indeed, and have been frequenting it since it opened in the late 1990s. The impact it has on the commercial landscape in the West is pretty obvious, for prior to its existance, the lack of a centralised commercial facility meant it was spread across a far larger area around the various neighbourhood centres. Such an impact is difficult to judge from its physical size, but to say it is non-notable for what it is physically is way too dismissive.--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huaiwei - what you say is all well and good and would result in a keep, except without a citation what you say is entirely your own conjecture (original research) and can't be put forwards as a reason to keep - can you get a citation to that effect? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. And how nice it is to sit around demanding for citations when practically every person who knows about its existance are vouching for its prominence, which should surely motivate some of you to do some checking up as well? A bit of googling wont hurt. The simple reason why I arent doing it yet is because I arent gonna waste time citing sources to be rejected at the whimp and fancy of some folks here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... but please, do keep in mind that notabiity is not "vouched for" by editors on Wikipedia. It requires sources. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also do be aware that any editor can jolly well be bold enough to help find sources for any article, irrespective of whether they are the original authors or not.--Huaiwei 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course they can. Anyone can help!  :) --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "anyone" include yourself?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sengkang. SchmuckyTheCat 05:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Points have been cited in my posts above. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable place as already mentioned above. Yamaguchi先生 10:57, 15 October 2006

• Delete Malls are businesses, so WP:CORP is the relevant standard. The article and discussion here produces no evidence from independent sources that are reliable that the mall meets the standards of WP:CORP. GRBerry 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment You conveniently lumped an essay (WP:INDY) with a guideline (WP:CORP) and treat them as thou they are policy. There has been contestations that a shopping centre, which is in reality a piece of real estate, is not a corporation, nor a singular business, and does not fall under WP:CORP. One also notes that sources deemed non-independent are not in themselves ample criteria for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites clearly indicates that company or organization websites should be treated with caution, but makes no mention that this amounts to outright rejection of the said source and hence, deletion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The presence of non-independent sources is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is the absence of independent sources that is. --Nehwyn 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, it will not make logical sense. How is it possible for non-independent sources to be permissable, yet non-permissable at the same time? And mind telling us if all articles in wikipedia who base much of their content on an "official site" are now worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement above does not regard "permissibility". It regarded deletion criteria. From a logical point of view, it is perfectly possible for "presence of non-independent source" not to be a deletion criterion, and for "absence of independent sources" to be one. As for your observation on other articles, again I must state that I prefer to judge each article on its own merits. --Nehwyn 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An article can have both independent sources and non-independent (related) sources. A good article will use both independent and related sources. The issue isn't whether or not the related sources are used. The issue is whether the independent sources are available and used. If the independent sources are not available, the article should be deleted as a consequence of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If the independent sources are available but not used, the article should be improved by using them. The best evidence that the independent sources are available is their use, but pointing out other sources that cite such independent sources is sometimes adequate. The opinions of individual editors that something is significant enough to cover carry no weight compared to the opinions of independent sources. We ignore related sources in discussing notability because related sources are inherently biased.

I also think it is obvious from my comment that I said WP:CORP was the standard. Links to essays are perfectly acceptable as longer explanations of an opinion given in discussion. The failure to use independent sources is evidence that it is impossible to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:V or WP:NOR, all of which are core policies. GRBerry 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I started an enquiry in [10] on the application of that guideline on shopping malls.--Huaiwei 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, let us report here that said enquiry has been answered. See the link above for the discussion. --Nehwyn 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reiterate WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:LOCAL is a proposed guideline. It has never been accepted and really has no relevance other than as an essay statement to summarize a particular point of view.--Isotope23 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That dosent stop others from using WP:INDY, also an essay, as a reasoning for deletion.--Huaiwei 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is a major difference between the two. WP:INDY leads with a one sentence summary of the essay that is an argument from policies. No such summary of WP:LOCAL exists or is possible. To top it off, WP:LOCAL says in the section entitled "Creating articles about places of local interest" that references should be included in an article about a local place of interest. So I can also argue "Delete because the article does not have the references required by WP:LOCAL." WP:LOCAL is a reason to delete the article, not to keep it, because the article is not up to the level that WP:LOCAL expects. GRBerry 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether there is a difference between two essays isnt for a single wikipedian to define, however. We are concerned about policy implimentation here, not about writting styles. If both are indeed essays, then both should be treated with equal weightage.--Huaiwei 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The defenders of this mall have now had several days to provide verifiable references of notability, and have failed. I think the page should be deleted, for the following reasons.

1. Notability: Whether you think this page is controlled by WP:CORP or the general notability guideline, notability has not been established. WP:LOCAL is not helpful, as the proposed guideline explicitly states that it does not establish notability requirements. There is no verified statement anywhere that establishes why this mall is notable, other than that it is a large mall in Singapore. The basic requirement of most notability pages -- two non-trivial references in verifiable and reliable sources is not onerous, and has not been met.
2. Verification: Not one statement on the page is verified by any reliable source. As written in WP:NOT, "all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."
3. Advertising: The page as it is written reads like advertising copy, and its only function is to advise readers of the amenties available at the mall, and to direct readers to the mall's website. This fails for several reasons: (a) Advertisements masquerating as articles are not only inappropriate, they may be speedy deleted; (b) Wikipedia is not a directory; and (c) Wikipedia is not advertising.
4. Incurable: As I've said, the page's defenders have had several days. I don't see that any of the problems above are curable, much less all of them.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the article, Jurong Point is notable and verified. The article is referenced, NPOV, not disputed, informative, and has a picture. --Vsion 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment May I point out, that the conclusion "notability is not established" is no longer governed by whether this comes under WP:CORP or not, but whether the sources which are already listed are Independent enough to be considered reliable. As is the case for many above, I dispute the notion that non-independent sources are always assumed to be unreliable. None of the stated guidelines above explicitely rule out the possibility of reliable non-independent sources, and not one person here could proof that those sources are indeed unreliable.--Huaiwei 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change reason for nomination: To clear up the confusion the last post engenders, as the nominator I state again that the proposed reason for deleting this article is that it does not meet the relevant notability criteria. In this case, WP:CORP applies, so multiple, non-trivial, independent sources must be quoted by the article to establish its notability. As it stands, the article contains only one such source, whose reliability I have not questioned. As for non-independent sources, whether they are reliable or not, the article can of course contain them, but they are not eligible as notability criteria under WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple such sources. In the above, Mailer has already given another source from the Business Times. Let me add another one from a govt. agency [11]. So, any remaining problem? This Afd is already a futile effort, we are just entertaining each other here ;), which is alright. But basically, if the article was to be deleted, it would just be wasting the contributors' effort and reducing the comprehensiveness of wikipedia (although some editors don't care about shopping malls, but the majority do.) We can discuss forever, but in short, the reason cited for deletion is really very weak. --Vsion 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The webpage quoted by Mailer above mentions Jurong Point Shopping Centre when stating that a new large mall may be built near it in 2008-2009. That is not a notability assertion for the present mall. --Nehwyn 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Verifiability policy: "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability." Does this apply here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, non-independent sources can be used as sources, sure; they just cannot be used as notability criteria under WP:CORP. This being a debate on notability, that concern indeed does not apply here. --Nehwyn 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield Symphonic Band

School band does not assert notability, fails to meet WP:BAND criteria. Very few relavant Google hits. Also, article is written in a promotional tone and is possibily a vanity. Delete Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Achievements section asserts notability, thus not a speedy. MER-C 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I forgot that, it has won SYF awards several times. Therefore notable, and thanks for pointing that out. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete School bands virtually never pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, school bands are not notable by default. Lankiveil 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. *drew 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a normal school band --Jirrupin 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallen Mei

Non-notable photographer. Contested prod. MER-C 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article has information that is not independently verifiable about a photographer who, yes, doesn't seem notable: his own site doesn't mention, and Google does not suggest, awards, independent reviews, solo exhibitions, or notable publication. -- Hoary 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. SteveHopson 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable film director. --Vsion 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Er, how "notable"? There's now a link to IMDB, but this says next to nothing about him (and certainly doesn't verify much of what's in this article). It does however link to this page, which (perhaps unfairly) tells us that one of his movies is quite outstandingly bad. Is it the single unfavorable review that brings notability? Or is there something else? -- Hoary 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is every film director automatically notable? I could only find one review of one of his films. In that critic's opinion, the film was abysmal. I stick with my Delete vote above. SteveHopson 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, um, he might be a notable case study in the world of dentistry. -- Hoary 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The films he has directed seem, uh, let's say "underground." Don't see any reliable sources him about on Google. Recury 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heartware

Vanity entry of non-notable film. No distributor, no IMDb entry, all redlinks. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since not on the radar and per WP:VAIN.Pascal.Tesson 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete distributor included, redlinks deleted, IMDb status being processed.
• Don't delete as I have included a distributor, which can be verified. Redlinks have also been removed and approved external links to provide more information included.
• Delete per above. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Charlesknight 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not sure. This article sounds like a spam link collection. Gives the feeling of adv or exposure enhencer but not encyclopaedic. A purple wikiuser 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRealFennShysa 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. IMDb status applied for (even if that anonymous poster is correct about that) is not IMDb status. Wryspy 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Leidiot 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ten-minute indy film without distribution is not notable, with or without an IMDB page. (IMDB page is necessary, but not sufficient.) Fan-1967 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

[edit] Marjorie Wee

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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

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

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)

• Delete - unreferenced assertion of notability, 114 ghits. MER-C 12:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Keep. The job is a quite senior one with a very large company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

• • 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)
  • Comment What exactly is the significance of a group general counsel? --Wafulz 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you do not know how large the NOL-APL group of companies is, then you need to check this out: [12] & [13]. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
    • There's also been a fair bit of malicious sock-puppetry surrounding this. Onebravemonkey 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
    • Comment. Also, please note that User:Dave and User:User Dave are distinct editors. --Wafulz 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Delete Ay yi yi... WP:V, WP:NN, sockpuppetry... -- Kicking222 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

•[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: [14] & [15]." 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."—The preceding unsigned comment was 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."—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

• Agree. Notable. Keep. --218dot186dot9dot2 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 218dot186dot9dot2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:RS. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Marini.) -AED 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, AED and others above. To the person or people who keeps repeating "WHY DELETE?": please read the policies linked to multiple times above. That's why. Please stop asking and make an argument if you are going to. Also, please read and understand what sock- and meat- puppets are. --Storkk 08:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Restoring my strong delete comment that was deleted by 218dot186dot9dot2. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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.

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, almost speedily. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Marini

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Article subject does not meet the WP:BIO guideline criteria. Delete.--Isotope23 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - cited as counsel in some cases reported in Singapore Law Reports.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.120.166.13 (talk • contribs).

• Disagree with Isotope23, article subject meets the WP:BIO guideline criteria. Keep.--Mad Cow Disease 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mad Cow Disease (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..

• Comment out of curiousity, which criteria of WP:BIO do you assert Mr. Marini meets?--Isotope23 12:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• [Moved from the discussion page]: Comments This man was my pro bono lawyer. He did my case for free. I am Spartacus too! 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: I am Spartacus too! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Article subject returns 5 hits in Singapore Lawnet [16]. Keep--One Legged Chicken 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: One Legged Chicken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep per comments.--Singaporelawyer 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Singaporelawyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comments the comments above assert that he apparently is a rather nice chap, but they don't show how he meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:RS. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Wee.) (Closing admin: Please watch for socks.) -AED 07:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and as above. Onebravemonkey 12:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Restoring my delete comment that was removed by Singaporelawyer. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Singaporelawyer has been disrupting the AfD at Marjorie Wee as well. Interesting to note that all keep opinions so far are from users registered over the last 2 days...--Isotope23 15:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and AED. --Aaron 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the notability threshhold requirements of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio.--Vsion 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. AfD is a debate; the earlier deletes seem not only less informed than the later keeps, but have not responded to the convincing points put forward, and this reduces the weight of their opinions, which would otherwise have resulted in no consensus. Tyrenius 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Miyagi (blogger)

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria Neier 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Page creator has also made vanity links from other pages. Leibniz 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Leibniz. How do you get the name "Mr Miyagi" from rugby? --Nishkid64 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn blogger. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 No assertion of notability asserted. "Prominent" and "popular" are not assertions of notability. ColourBurst 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes they are. Kappa 04:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Prominent" and "popular" do not say anything. What did they do that was prominent? What made them popular? Nevertheless, it's contested here on AfD and so the speedy delete criteria can't apply anymore. ColourBurst 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "Doesn't explain why" may be a good reason to delete, but it's not a good reason to speedy delete without any further examination. Kappa 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he was a columnist in a mass media newspaper. He resigned recently amid political pressure, in a controversy. He was already well-known in Singapore before that and, besides his columns, he is often interviewed and cited in newspaper. --Vsion 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, ex-legitimade journalist, and the claim of being cited in newspapers seems to be correct [17] [18]. More notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, famous blogger as well, often appears in Mrbrown's blog and podcast. They both had columns in Today, and has lots of media attention. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very famous Singapore blogger. even has collumn in the Singaporean newspaper --Leidiot 12:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. It would have helped if you had cited sources that mention said awards, keep voters. Grandmasterka 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raffles Voices

This article is about a school choir activity. There are 102 unique Google hits [19], but I did not see any that might establish the notability of this choir. They have not released albums like Kashmere Stage Band once did. They do not meet the proposed WP:ORG. I would just suggest a merge with the school article, but it is just as hopelessly cluttered with unencyclopedic information as this article is. I delayed this nomination for over a week with the hope that the creator or other interested parties might improve the article to establish notability, but no edits took place. Erechtheus 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Non-notable secondary school choir that fails WP:MUSIC. Possibly merge to Raffles Institution instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bands, clubs, and groups at a single school are rarely notable enough for articles on their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Raffles Institution, school choirs do not meet WP:MUSIC, even if they are the best in the country. RI is known for its long list of all rounded achievements, and some mention in the school's article itself is good. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable choir: (1) The group received numerous awards at national level, (2) it participated in international arts festivals, and won awards as well, (3) it has held several paid public concerts, at prominent locations including the Victoria Concert Hall, which is the country's premier concert venue; hence it satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Vsion 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 12:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there are other Singapore choirs and school musical groups that have articles in Wikipedia such as Nanyang Polytechnic Voice Ensemble and Raffles Institution Military Band. The choir does meet the guidelines in WP:MUSIC, having obtained a category winners award and gold diploma in the Johannes Brahms International Choir Festival last year and many other international competitions. It also had a concert tour in Alava, Spain in 1995 when it took part in the XIV Semana Coral International de Alava. Seeyf 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge some information into Raffles Institution: there is a little useful information here, but it is not worth its own article. Heimstern Läufer 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete/Merge per TBC Computerjoe's talk 19:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singlish vocabulary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Individually, these would be grounds for deletion as they are all dictionary defintions. Collectively, they're just a list of dict defs, and no more notable for it. eaolson 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I made a quick renaming of the article; sorry about that, but the article had just been created. I will fix all the links. Cheers. --Vsion 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom; fails WP:WINAD.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a translator, nor the Singaporian urban dictionary. --Daniel Olsen 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — At most, words should be added to Wiktionary. – Zntrip 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The words provide an insight into Singapore culture and these are not dictionary definitions, but explanations of various expressions used in Singapore. --Han Sheng 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment - Many of these are not words but phrases and expressions which are commonly used in Singapore. This page would be helpful to users who have read the page on Singlish --Han Sheng 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, What makes a list of "explanations of various expressions used in Singapore" any different than an urban dictionary? Also how much does an expression have to be "used" to be considered notable enough to be on the list?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many similar articles in Category:Lexis. Moreover, this article is a split from Singlish which was too large. --Vsion 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I wouldn't consider this article similar to other articles in Category:Lexis, since this article simply lists every single word in the Singlish vocabulary, whereas most of the other articles in Category:Lexis have descriptions on history and background.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your argument. Nonethelss, the list does not intend to list every word in Singlish, but rather it lists only selected and representative words. A detailed Singlish lexicon can be found in http://www.singlishdictionary.com/ and it is hugh. The Afded-article only consists of a small and illustrative subset of the most common words. And we try to relate it to Singapore's history and culture. In addition, the etymology of some words is also provided where it would be interesting and informative. --Vsion 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Even if the article "lists only selected and representative words", its still basically a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which violates the WP:WINAD policy. Why not just remove the vocabulary definitions and add a section on the history and cultural background of the Singlish language?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Yes, I'm a deletionist. This article is a useful appendix to the Singlish article. I find Daniel Olsen's comparison to urbandictionary to not be apt: people from Singapore really do talk like this ;-) My Alt Account 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Though you may be correct in that "people from Singapore really do talk like this", how does that prove this isn't bascially just an urban dictionary? After all, a lot of people do use slang words.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The difference is that urbandictionary is full of made-up shit. Half the stuff that's "real" is less than 10 years old. The stuff in Singlish vocabulary existed before most of its practitioners were born, and it's well studied by linguists. My impression is that both linguists and "native speakers of Singlish" (if that concept makes sense) maintain the articles. While I don't particularly endorse the use of singlish, it's not really comparable to slang. My Alt Account 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note that Singlish is a form of slang as it is not considered a formal version of English. Also, be it urban or not, the article is basically a Sanglish dictionary, which, as I said above, violates the WP:WINAD policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The linguists consider Singlish a pidgin. How is it relevant that it's not a formal version of English? And where was that disputed anyhow? Hell, I can hardly understand it (sort of annoying, since singlish speakers seem to expect native english speakers to understand them). WP:WINAD is mostly intended to prevent dicdef stub articles and (IMO) has little to say for or against the purpose of Singlish vocabulary. If I were to attack it, I'd be pointing to policies about lists. My Alt Account 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I mentioned that it was not a formal version of English and thus a type of slang, since you stated earlier on that Singlish was "not really comparable to slang." Either way, how does it make sense that a dicdef stub can violate the WP:WINAD policy, yet a list of dicdefs do not? According to your interpretation of WP:WINAD, any dicdef could bypass the WP:WINAD policy if written longer than a stub or in list form. Also, though the article doesn't seem to violate any list guidelines (note there are no policies on lists), it does however violate the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per MAA (and I'm not bothered by the "list" aspect of this article, which is designed to explain by giving examples), though I wish the subject matter of the article were more clearly declared in the opening: i.e. that this is a Singaporean dialect. Allon Fambrizzi 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Keep per MAA. Unlike the typical neologism/slang term of the week AfDs, this article really does look useful. Improvements can be made (the pronunciation of "bloody" early on in the piece looks odd), but this is hardly a reason to delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the entry as it is not an expression unique to Singlish. --Han Sheng 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Singlish is definitely notable; my friends and I speak it every day. We have an article listing Internet slang - why not Singlish? I don't think there is a Singlish Wiktionary; if there is, I'd support adding these words there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • That argument is based upon a fundamental error. The English Wiktionary takes all words in all languages, just as the English Wikipedia deals with topics from all countries. The "English" part is the language that its articles are written in. Uncle G 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary or phrasebook. This article, on the other hand, is. Find a home for a transwiki if we can. Guy 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article is not just a dictionary or phrasebook. Giving readers an idea of what Singlish is like is helpful in their understanding to Singlish. By looking at the list, they can see how English, Malay, Hokkien etc. are mixed into Singlish. The origins of some of the terms are also indicated to show how various terms have come about. Those that are not indicated are still being researched or verified.

• Comment. Isn't one of the main purposes of a Singlish dictionary is to give "readers an idea of what Singlish is like is helpful in their understanding to Singlish"?--TBCTaLk?!? 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes but a Singlish dictionary would be too specific and no one who wants to find out what Singlish is about quickly will have the time to go through a Singlish dictionary. This article is meant to give readers a general understanding of Singlish based on a representative list of words. It is not simply a list of dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions don't usually explain how the terms came about. --Han Sheng 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. What does it mean to be a "representative list" of words? How were some words and phrases chosen as "representative" and others excluded? For example, I don't see what telling someone that "gabra" means "very confused" tells them other than the meaning of the word. I also think you'll find that any dictionary worth its salt does explain how a term came about; see [20] for example. eaolson 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether words are representative or not are not determined by just one person. That is exactly why this article is here for others to contribute. This article is still a work in progress. The words that simply list their definitions are still being worked on and I have yet to find additional information for these entries. These words are simply left-over from when this article was still a section in the Singlish page. It was never my intention to make this page a plain list of Singlish vocab and their definitions. I'm working hard to clean it up and make it more useful to wikipedia. That's also the reason why i added the clean-up tag to the top of the list. --Han Sheng 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a list of dictionary definitions, plain and simple. Work a few examples into the text of Singlish and it's not a problem. List them like this and it violates WP:NOT. kingboyk 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the problem is that many people who are actually proposing to delete this article don't understand what Singlish is about at all. Some might think that Singlish is something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages. Fact is, Singlish has been around for more then 40 years, since Singapore's coloial days, and has slowly been evolving till its current stage today. It is not possible just to "work a few examples into the text of Singlish" as it would not be representative. Furthermore, this page originated from the article on Singlish and was split because the page was growing too long. If this page is to be deleted and a few examples were put back into the article on Singlish, the page would start growing too long again as more and more people add their examples. There are many similar pages available on Wikipedia, such as Australian English vocabulary, and they exist undisturbed. I'm not sure why there is a sort of double standard being practised here. I feel that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore to decide whether this page is representative of Singlish and will help others in the understanding of Singlish. --Han Sheng 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I know what Singlish is la so please don't try to insult my intelligence. I have about half a passport full of SG entry/exit stamps. Delete the examples if they get too many. It's cruft. I know the problem, we get the same problem at The Beatles where newbies try to add every factlet under the sun about the group, but it's something we have to deal with. Singlish is an important English dialect which requires an article, but it's not so important that we have to breach WP:NOT and become a dictionary. --kingboyk 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No one here is claiming that Singlish is "something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages." Also, no matter how long Singlish has been around, the article is still nothing more than just a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which is a violation of the WP:WINAD policy. Other related vocabulary pages continue to exist because they describe grammar, history, and background , whereas this article simply lists the definition every single Singlish related expression, which as I mentioned before violates WP:WINAD. As for your comment stating that "that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore", please remember that Wikipedia (being a Wiki) is a community based project, thus issues are resolved among the Wikipedian community, not just a select group of users. --TBCTaLk?!? 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm not sure how (as an example) Australian English vocabulary differs from this page. How does it describe "grammar, history and background"? Anyway, I apologise if I stepped on a few toes while putting forward my argument on keeping this article. I'm still not too familiar about how things work around here as this is my first time participating in an Afd discussion. I see my mistake in suggesting that only Wikipedians based in Singapore should decide this matter. However, i hope that Singapore-based Wikipedians will have something valuable to contribute on the Singlish vocabulary page so as to make the information worth keeping on Wikipedia. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment, I was referring to other vocabulary articles, such as the Spanish vocabulary or Turkish vocabulary articles, which do contain segments on grammar, history, background, etc. Either way though, I suggest that Australian English vocabulary be nominated as well for deletion, as it too seems to be a list of dicdefs.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT (which is policy and isn't negotiable) excludes this exact thing. "We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep," it says, and we aren't teaching people how to talk like a guy from Singapore either. Recury 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have added further info in the introduction regarding attempts at organising Singlish vocabulary into a dictionary. Hope that would be something that is considered useful. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe the list of world could be shrunk. Seano1 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Current state of article is appalling, but it should not be deleted just because of the lists - remove them and provide better detail. Singlish's vocabulary as a creole is quite diverse - ranging from Hokkien to Malay as well as English corruptions, worthy of documentation. John Riemann Soong 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, what do you mean by "should not be deleted just because of the lists"? The article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions, which is a violation of WP:WINAD, a policy (not just a guideline) of Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It does not consist of only dictionary definitions. There is useful information regarding the attempts at documentation of Singlish vocabulary and the usage of such vocabulary. --Han Sheng 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• "Lists" in the sense of indiscriminate lists of dictionary definitions. We should use wiktionary for that, but there are notable topics to cover about vocabulary ... once the lists are cleaned up we might have a shorter article to improve. 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with cleanup - as per John Riemann Soong. Ergative rlt 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not dictionary. At least delete the terms part. Pavel Vozenilek 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup - as per Ergative rlt. Leet speak, a fictional language invented by online gamers, has its own comprehensive article. However, this article lists only words that are explainable and have the highest level of usage in online gaming. With proper cleanup, Singlish vocabulary deserves a spot in Wikipedia, as nuances in a specialized form of Singaporean-English dialect is representative of cultural and lingual knowledge of a certain country and group of people; an aspect highly appropriate for Wikipedia. Hellwing 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this "article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions", then I must presume the 566 words in the introduction are either invisible to them or are considered worthy for deletion as well? This article is a helper article for Singlish to keep the later succint, and to allow for detailed and close examination of Singlish vocabulary. It is indeed strange that a change in format of factual presentation is probably all that is enough to swing votes in either direction.--Huaiwei 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. When this article was nominated, it was only a list. See [21] eaolson 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. That is a common occurance, and in fact, editors are greatly encouraged to improve on articles and save them from being deleted. I thus find it amusing that some editors continue to claim it was "nothing but dictionary definitions" when the article was rapidly expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated.--Huaiwei 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Much of the intro has been expanded yesterday, at least with three new sections, whereas at the time I commented the intro consisted only of a single paragraph. I suggest you please check the edit history first before claiming that it was "expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated", which it was not.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, we can just list a number of that long list, and make it encyclopedic. This is a legitimate topic and Singaporeans converse in Singlish daily. This article is to explain some of the more well known Singlish words as foreigners mainly do not understand it. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...and that is the job of a dictionary not an encyclopedia. That said, get rid of the definitions list and replace it with prose and it's a legitimate article. --kingboyk 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:IAR. Wikipedia is not just a dictionary sure, but it still meant to be a useful reference tool. This is a legitimate topic and a good supporting article for Singlish. Markovich292 06:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with clean-up. —Sengkang 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Chinese Song Writing Competition

nn article violates WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM dtony 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sadly, some legends pass into history and are lost. Fortunately, this "legend" isnt one of them. Resolute 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is unabashedly operating as a billboard/soapbox/web site for a private message by promotors,("We wish to bring forth the following message...") The subject may or may not be notable (I wouldn't know), but would-be authors need to write an article, not simply move in and use WP real estate as their soapbox for their private "message", if they wish to avoid summary deletion. They have not even attempted to do this. If they wish to attempt a real article on the subject, the deletion might possibly be reconsidered. --Shirahadasha 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't assert notability or provide references, and it's written at least partially in first person, which is not a good sign. -Elmer Clark 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Erechtheus 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no legend here Leidiot 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Coast Seafood Centre

Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert. --Musaabdulrashid 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason for a government-built facility to advertise itself. Its the tenents who do so....to their own outlets.--Huaiwei 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not particularly notable even in a local context. It's just a conglomeration of some big restaurants, nothing more. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SPAM ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a great place for tasty seafood the Yellow Pages, looks like WP:SPAM for a non-notable location/business. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the new version. Thanks for the cleanup, sourcing, and dePOVing! --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, article is generally advertising. I must admit this place has been popular with tourists since its opening. It houses a few of Singapore's best restaurants imo, Jumbo Seafood and Long Beach, the more renowned ones. However, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. A redirect to East Coast Park will be the best option and some information at the article will be good. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article has been rewritten into an encyclopedic term, needs expansion though. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am not too sure how many of the above voters are actually Singaporeans, but I must say from a local perspective that this food centre is certainly well reknown for its collection of some of the most celebrated seafood restaurants in Singapore. The quality of the article may need some spring cleaning, but to delete based on allerged non-notability dosent quite fit the bill in my opinion.--Huaiwei 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then please look for, and put, some sources like Straits Times articles or whatever in the article to bolster this argument. Daniel Case 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I dont think I can fish for a Straits Times article now, for why should it suddenly talk about a well-known eating place which has been around for decades? It needs no introduction to locals. Have you tried doing a google search, and see how the Singapore Tourism Board markets it [22]? Or how about an article like [23], which was published in the Sunday Times, for something more convincing? I could easily find these sources within two pages in google search, so I find it difficult to believe that you can make such a quick conclusion on its non-notability. Where is your evidence, on hindsight?--Huaiwei 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there.
What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist [24] and Explore Holidays [25] are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration [26] (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts [27]? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 [28]? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination.
I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO.
Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Amists 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Huaiwei. —Sengkang 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, it's a popular tourist spot. I suggested once about bringing Jimbo there. --Vsion 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. - SpLoT 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Surely the delete camp can see where Huaiwei is coming from. To locals, this is more than notable; it meets WP:CORP - and thus KEEP. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I came to Singapore as a tourist (although technically on business I did get some time to enjoy things) in 2005. Many many people told me I needed to go to ECSC to try the food there. That's anecdotal evidence and not admissable, but does suggest refs for notability are out there if one tries to find them. And Huaiwei has... I see above that Huaiwei has no less then 5 apparent references, some from very notable sources. Let's get those vetted (as more than brief mentions) and actually INTO the article (a pet peeve of mine is that info developed during the course of an AfD doesn't always make it) and then this clearly is a Keep. Note: Without any slight to the original nom, the original article was a delete, and the way it is now is STILL a delete, absent the adding of notability refs given above. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Louise Lu

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are her books A Little Story-Book Worm (申娜英语童话集) and The Dream-Quest, the former published in Singapore and the latter published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Only 38 Google hits (21 unique) for "Stephanie Louise Lu". Only 24 Google hits (9 unique) for "A Little Story-Book Worm" OR 申娜英语童话集 "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". Only 32 Google hits (19 unique) for "The Dream-Quest" "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". -Elmer Clark 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Not notable Martinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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.