| Revision as of 15:13, 21 February 2012 editVirtuaoski (talk | contribs)230 edits Delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:00, 22 February 2012 edit undoPhantomsteve (talk | contribs)Administrators33,036 edits add commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Merge''' - Recommend to trim and merge into the father's article at ]. Wee Shu Min's act was only notable because of who her father is. ] (]) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' - Recommend to trim and merge into the father's article at ]. Wee Shu Min's act was only notable because of who her father is. ] (]) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *''''Merge''' - I support a merge simply because of the relative sizes of the two articles. If the main article ] was much longer, then it may make sense to break something out, but as it stands, a merge would keep things focused. ] (]) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | *''''Merge''' - I support a merge simply because of the relative sizes of the two articles. If the main article ] was much longer, then it may make sense to break something out, but as it stands, a merge would keep things focused. ] (]) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * |
*'''Strong Delete''' - The girl and the incident was only notable because of her being the daughter of an MP, and the father was not even notable and only got an article here because of at one-off incident. See the original article as it was created here . Its a vicious cycle that should not have started in the first place. ] (]) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Agree with DanS76. The incident is no longer notable. ] (]) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - Agree with DanS76. The incident is no longer notable. ] (]) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *:'''Comment''' - "no longer notable" is not a criteria for deletion. If a subject was notable in the past (I don't happen to think that this one was) then it is always notable. ''''']'''''/]|]\ 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:00, 22 February 2012
Wee Shu Min elitism controversy
- Wee Shu Min elitism controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a single event which generated coverage at the time, but not long-standing coverage. I do not think it meets the criteria for inclusion on the English Misplaced Pages PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I think the incident is best taken in the backdrop of the increasing concerns in Singapore about elitism and social class divide in the last 5 years or so. While the issue is still a hot-button topic, I think the information in this article is important. It might not deserve its own article, but until there is a suitable one to merge it into, I believe it should be kept. -ryand 13:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Merge - Recommend to trim and merge into the father's article at Wee Siew Kim. Wee Shu Min's act was only notable because of who her father is. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- 'Merge - I support a merge simply because of the relative sizes of the two articles. If the main article Wee Siew Kim was much longer, then it may make sense to break something out, but as it stands, a merge would keep things focused. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - The girl and the incident was only notable because of her being the daughter of an MP, and the father was not even notable and only got an article here because of at one-off incident. See the original article as it was created here . Its a vicious cycle that should not have started in the first place. DanS76 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with DanS76. The incident is no longer notable. Virtuaoski (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - "no longer notable" is not a criteria for deletion. If a subject was notable in the past (I don't happen to think that this one was) then it is always notable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)