Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair

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 The creator has "withdrawn" the article.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 [1]: "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.