Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yam Ah Mee: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:37, 18 May 2011

Yam Ah Mee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: How is he notable? or even encyclopedic?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Singaporean general election, 2011: Fails WP:BLP1E. He was just doing his job during the election and not particularly spectacular at it. He is only getting attention because of his voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B3virq3b (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by nominator and B3virq3b. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looking at the article in its current form, and the actual career of Mr Yam prior to his stint as the RO, I won't say this is an open-and-shut. He was a high-flying civil servant who served in various important capacities. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: High-flying civil servant does not equate to worthiness of having an article. That can be said for dozens of other civil servants globally.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only !vote once. As you already expressed a delete position in your nomination, I've changed your second "Delete" here to a "Comment". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but do not merge. Subject appears to have been received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, so just about meets WP:GNG. However, merging this to the election article would be a Bad Idea™ as undue coverage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I disagree with this. Yes, he did make it onto local media one or two days after the elections for being an overnight internet sensation, but that's it. I would not call that "significant coverage" enough to warrant a standalone biographical article. — b3virq3b (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. -ryand 22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominators presuppose notability established by RO role per se and ignore other grounds supporting notability. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I was scolded for commenting twice and you can comment twice.

Delete: Fame through voice is not notability.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He "commented" once and !voted to "keep" once. You, on the other hand, have !voted to "delete" four times now (although two of them have been removed). There is nothing wrong with adding comments and then separately !voting. To !vote multiple times otherwise is disruptive and against policy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC

That illogical and biased.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as per above.--TVB dx iang (Ta lk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :Ah I was scolded for commenting twice and  you can comment twice.
 *'''Delete''': Fame through voice is not notability.[[User:Foxhound66|Other dictionaries are better]] ([[User talk:Foxhound66|talk]]) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
-**He "commented" once and !voted to "keep" once. You, on the other hand, have !voted to "delete" four times now (although two of them have been removed). There is nothing wrong with adding comments and then separately !voting. To !vote multiple times otherwise is disruptive and against policy. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
+**He "commented" once and !voted to "keep" once. You, on the other hand, have !voted to "delete" four times now (although two of them have been removed). There is nothing wrong with adding comments and then separately !voting. To !vote multiple times otherwise is disruptive and against policy. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC
+::That illogical and biased.[[User:Foxhound66|Other dictionaries are better]] ([[User talk:Foxhound66|talk]]) 12:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Weak keep''', as per above.--[[User:Tdxiang/TVB|<font color= "blue">T</font><font color= "green">V</font><font color= "red">B</font>]][[User:Tdxiang|dx]][[:simple:User:Tdxiang|iang]] [[User talk:Tdxiang|(Ta]][[:simple:User talk:Tdxiang|lk]]) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)