Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton Chan

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 Delete. Cbrown1023 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Chan

Milton Chan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable individual. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned once or twice on the news doesn't make one article-worthy. Two other similar articles (Emmanuel Morin and Sheryne Morcos) created by the same user have already been deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Vice president of the largest political youth organization in Canada. Also did some newsworthy things. Delete Just vice president of policy not an actual leader--M8v2 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He's vice president of policy for the Young Liberals, not an outright vice president (as in second-in-command), according to the article. Also, the president of the organization doesn't himself have an article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Has been the subject of non-trivial coverage (including on the CBC national news), as has his "Election Prediction Project" website. Plenty of relevant Ghits as well. Agent 86 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless there's more evidence of notability. He's not even the current VP, Policy, and that (basically a board position isn't really notable enough of a position. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per User:Agent 86, and the Election Prediction Project, which could use it's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.lettinga (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete, the minimal coverage & junior position in org don't seem to meet WP:BIO. SkierRMH,06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Chooserr 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:BIO with flying colours. WilyD 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is maybe one independant news story of any substance about him, and it's only for handing out condoms at a Catholic church. That does not meet WP:BIO. Mus Musculus 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry things are not available on-line, but google can at least point to some of these, but this person has featured on both CBC and CTV national news, and a number of other media sources, not just for his church activities, but also because of his election website and political activities. The election website is extensively referred to by many election-oriented websites.Agent 86 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • During the recent Liberal leadership, several Young Liberal articles were created, probably so that their articles could be linked from the Liberal leadership endorsements article. I nominated several for deletion but I left Chan because I felt that he had some notability. At the time I would have been fine if somebody else had deleted the article. But having thought about it, I think that this is a keep for me (I'd say a "weak" one if I used those terms). He's certainly no Andrew Tanenbaum but his website has been around longer than electoral-vote.com and is probably more important on the Canadian scene than EV is on the American one. He was possibly the most prominent liberal Catholic in Canada when the Pope came, which was a huge news story day after day for weeks. And then there's his Liberal Party activities. No single thing really distinguishes him but taken together he seems notable enough to me.--JGGardiner 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the minimal coverage and completely mundane bio information does not add up to a totality of notability. I have school board councilmen that have a stronger rap sheet than passing out condoms and fifteen seconds of fame.--NinjaJew 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. It's been claimed that there are more sources of notability, but that they aren't online - they don't need to be. If multiple media sources are available to cite, offline or on, doing so in the article might change my mind. Without those citations, an assertion that the media mentions exist doesn't help me see the increased claimed notability. If someone gets around to writing an article on the Election Prediction website, he certainly should be mentioned there. --Krich (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", or "Political figures holding or who have held [...] office" or "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." or "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and so on Darkov 14:02, 20 December 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.