Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 3 May 2011

Nicole Seah

Nicole Seah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Political candidate only - fails WP:POLITICIAN Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But restore if she gets elected.Foxhound66 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

She's notable as a national celebrity, not (yet) as a politician. There are multiple, independent, secondary sources commenting on her, and therefore she meets the "primary notability criterion" as per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Singapore's elections will be held on May 7, before this AfD closes. Bgwhite (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Nom. There is no nobility unless she wins the election. Bgwhite (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, no other indications of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep Ms Seah has made a significant splash in the usually moribund Singaporean political scene and is currently a local celebrity. As the state-friendly media usually focuses on majority-party candidates, the mere fact that they - along with social media - have made a celebrity out of her, an opposition candidate, is unusual and deserving of a Misplaced Pages article. I think Ms. Seah's current achievement is already significant in this election campaign and will form a standard to measure other opposition candidates in the next general election in Singapore. This is irrespective of whether she wins or loses, and whether she stays in politics or leaves (I would argue that future, non-political biography is probably not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, unless she enters Parliament or becomes prominent in other ways). In other words, I think that the set of "prominent Singaporean opposition politicians (elected or otherwise)" is small enough that *any* candidate with major news coverage is automatically eligible. By way of comparison, consider the limited media coverage of Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, a candidate running from Ms. Seah's party in a neighbouring constituency, with the breadth and depth of media coverage for Ms. Seah. I considered suggesting "Keep or merge into Singaporean general election, 2011", but I think a prominent opposition candidate in Singapore - almost universally unelected - are notable enough to have articles about them. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you or Elle _{vécut heureuse} please add some more to the article. The article, as is, does not state how notable she is. Any more information, whether political or non-political, would be very useful. I think there are 82 out of 87 seats being "contested" (with Singapore politics, contested is a very different word) and upto six different parties "contesting" each seat, however most seats have just two parties contesting. So, there are "alot" of opposing candidates. Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Exams! But I will try. She is definitely notable though the article about her doesn't shed a lot of light (yet). Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• I see your "exams" and raise you one "leaving Singapore, probably permanently, in four days and so packing like a maniac"! But I will try as well. -- Gaurav (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The culture by which we judge the notability of candidates in western elections (which WP:POLITICIAN is based on) is not suitable for judging articles on people who participate in less-than-free democracies, but I don't think the nominator knows how disingenuous this nomination is. She is not "a political candidate only". Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:GOODFAITH, La goutte de pluie. Off2riorob only had the article as it was to judge by. I'm sure we can change people's minds by improving the article and arguing our case here! -- Gaurav (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly passes the standard of WP:BASIC, which is the main standard for all biographies, whether something in the section WP:BIO#Additional criteria (such as WP:POLITICIAN) applies or not. Hans Adler 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into the National Solidarity Party page until she is elected.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree: Nicole Seah's significance (and hence notability) has nothing to do with being a member of the NSP, or in being elected. In fact, I would argue that were Ms. Seah's team to win in the Marine Parade GRC on Saturday, the *other* members of her team would not be "notable" for individual Misplaced Pages articles, and that a notice of their achievement would be more appropriate on the NSP's article. Ms. Seah's notability comes from her becoming a political celebrity, which is something to do with her alone, and not with her party or even her political future. -- Gaurav (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The people who recommended deletion are either her political opponents or obviously know nuts about Singapore politics. Nicole's facebook entry - no of likes - has already surpassed Singapore's founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew within days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs)

facebook is not a measure of actual popularity. Anyone cna create multiple accounts and 'like' a person. 'Like's on facebook don't equate to actual agreements; for example people 'like' the Whitehouse faebook apage to spew hatred against Barack Obama.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Who on earth will create 60 000 accounts to like a person on Facebook within a period of 10 days?

One please sing your posts, I get scolded for not doing so. Second, who is not the right word. It is many netizens. All you have to do is create multiple accounts. Yoru argument does not stand.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep Nicole Seah is now the most popular politician on Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touchring (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Keep per Hans Adler. The references currently in the article are sufficient to show that she meets WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• You got to keep this, she has inspired a whole country in this coming General Election Raymond Ng (raymond@marketingyou.me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.20 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moved previous entry from the top for organization. Also added bullet and made the !vote bold - frankieMR (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

She has help us to stand up for our rights, so we must not delete her page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.26 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now. If going by national press she crosses the bar for multiple, 3rd party, reliable sources that cover her as the main subject. James Gomez wasn't elected either, but there were enough of similar sources to have an article on its own. Personally I'm hoping that there will eventually be foreign-media sources, but if she ever fades away after the elections we can always consider coming back here or to merge it to the NSP/GE2011 article. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree - its local news and for Wikipedians in Singapore it must be interesting but surely you have a Singaporean wikipedia to work on local stuff - this would not get support in a British candidate or a USA candidate. You can't comment keep for now and redirect when its realised its not actually notable because its of local interest to you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• We don't have a Singaporean wikipedia, and Singapore doesn't have provinces like Britain or USA. Our local press is the national press; Local news in our context, is national news. - Mailer Diablo 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Also, Wikipedias are divided by language, not region: in an ideal world, *all* of them would have content for *everywhere*. It's not meant to be divided geographically. -- Gaurav (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguments about being the "most popular" and "standing up for your rights" does mean notable. So many politicians in Thirld World countries stand up for people's rights and dont get a wikipedia page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mailer diablo is talking about sources covering her (thus meeting WP:GNG), not about being popular or standing up for rights. Are you responding to 220.255.1.26? -- Gaurav (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - She meets the general notability guideline, there is significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - References show that she is notable (GNG) so the article should be kept. Ougro (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates