Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 07:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathew Chuk

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (2nd nomination)
Mathew Chuk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable person. 95% of article's contents is unverifiable. Just check the references. N.B: I am the one who created and contributed the entirety of the Mathew Chuk article. The joke has gone on long enough. Its time to delete this sucker. Walid khalil (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Walid khalil (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be notable student politician, what with the coverage in secondary sources. May be notable just for that horrifying monobrow alone. Get rid of the unverifiable cruft, and this will be a legit, if somewhat short, article. Lankiveil (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. The behaviour of the nominator and author may be bizarre, but the fact remains that, stripped of the cruft, this guy is perfectly notable. He remains the only independent in twenty years to be elected General Secretary of the National Union of Students - and the verifiable sources exist to back that up, considering how noteworthy it was seen as when it happened. Rebecca (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs rewrite as indicated by Lankiveil & Rebecca but notability is clear.--VS talk 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep while I would normally outright vote delete for student politicians... the Chuk article certainly has enough references which are clearly about this guy that he meets WP:N. This article has moved well past the point where it should be deleted simply because the creator of the article asked nicely.Garrie 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what the nom wrote in the last AfD:

:*Keep I just wanted to address some of the above concerns. Firstly, none of the other gen secs have a wiki, but as I have explained clearly in the article, the current gen sec is unique in that he is an unaligned independent who has defeated a heavily backed party candidate - for the first time in almost two decades. Secondly, regarding janejellyroll's fruitless search, I just wanted to draw attention to the highly unusual spelling of his first name. Most of the references pertaining to him spell it with the conventional double t, hence the apparent lack of references when the correct spelling is searched. Thirdly, with regards to none of the references establishing notability, can I draw attention to the fact that Chuk has been mentioned extensively in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, with the former photographing him for their newspaper and the SMH devoting most of an article to him. ::*Further to this, Chuk's election is described in detail in no less than seven other Wikipedia articles. I have gone to a lot of trouble to reference this article to prove notability. Finally, and most particularly, before you cast your vote, I urge you to first visit the Felix Eldridge and Rose Jackson articles. Eldridge's article remains an unreferenced stub and the two outdated references on Jackson's article certainly don't prove notability yet neither was deleted. Thank you for your consideration.Walid khalil 10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep on the basis of the noms prior argument. Avruchtalk 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I too share the viewpoints expressed by GarrieIrons, that I would generally vote to delete without losing any sleep. However, notability has been established in line with the accepted standard, it's referenced well, and despite some MOS issues it's reasonably well written. Sounds to me like this article has been moved for deletion on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, which is far from an acceptable justification. Thewinchester (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this article isn't great (it's style is too casual and it needs better referencing) but the person is just across the borderline of being notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2008 (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.