Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk

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. Avi 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathew Chuk

Article concerns a non-notable student politican. All he did was get elected. None of the other Gen Secs, and only two of the NUS presidents have wikipedia pages. Seems like a bit of vanity to me.

• Delete - Non-notable persona.Jj35 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I found this one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia but not in the proper logs, so I added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 1. It seems to have been handled incorrectly and I am not sure I have fixed up everything that should be fixed. Could an admin check that this one is now properly added to AfD? --Bduke 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To previous question: it seems to be working fine now. To the point: How much wood should a wood Chuk chuck till a wood Chuk could chuck notability? YechielMan 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) My crossed-out comment violated the "don't be a dick" rule. I'm sorry. YechielMan 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete He's the general secretary of a student organization representing 700,000 students, but the point about none of the other general secretaries having articles is well taken. The bottom line for me is that the references cited don't establish WP:N. If there were more mentions like the last reference cited, then I would strongly support this article, but my search turned up nothing. janejellyroll 08:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete student politician, not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• 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 per comments made by Walid khalil. Precedent is not automatically binding when it comes to AfDs; therefore the fact that other general secretaries don't have their own articles is not, in itself, a reason for deletion. It appears that the figure in question is notable enough in Australian politics, even if his actual office is rather minor. Walton monarchist89 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per comments made by Walid khalil.Mathmo ^Talk 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sourced, referenced and notable.... what else do we want? Alf photoman 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn student politician Walid khalil's points notwithstanding. Eusebeus 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Well referenced, but still not notable. The position he holds isn't signficant enough. Maybe if he becomes President?Garrie 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the position is significantly important, and the person sufficiently notable that these concerns are not substantiated.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article cites multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in sources independent of Chuk or the university he attends. Also don't see any evidence for nominator's assertion that this is a vanity page (unless someone has surprising new evidence that Mathew Chuk also uses the name Walid Khalil). cab 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is on the borderline, but good enough I think. Lankiveil 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - He has to be notable. The National Union of Students has more influence than it gets credit for; the general secretary of NUS is at least as influential as a state backbencher. He has been repeatedly mentioned in the non-electronic media. - Richardcavell 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The victory of Chuk was one of the most notable events in Australian student politics in twenty years, and was duly reported in numerous major newspapers. Rebecca 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Though its fair that not every General Secretary deserves an article, I think in this case the media coverage associated with Chuk's victory means his article fulfills notability criteria. I elliot 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons given above LibStu 06:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per I elliot and others. While student politics is normally borderline notable, this particular result attracted a lot of attention and was a significant swing, and may have accorded Chuk notability well beyond his titled role. Orderinchaos78 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Mathew+Chuk — news, books, scholar Addhoc 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per above searches - not enough for WP:BIO... Addhoc 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-referencd and detailed - there's no way this should be deleted. Google searches are not an indication of notability. JROBBO 05:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - not very well sourced, I would consider only 2 of the citations to be reliable secondary sources. Also the lack of further avaiable sources, in my opinion, has relevance. However, probably just enough for WP:BIO... Addhoc 11:33, 8 February 2007 (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.