Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 3 May 2011

Tin Pei Ling

Tin Pei Ling (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) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. To summarise succinctly: I don't think Americans understand the importance of this candidate. The contest between Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah helps symbolise the entire Singapore general election of 87 seats. In fact if no further reasons are given for deletion I am inclined to speedy close this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future.

That said, would you please explain your statement that this is a symbolic contest? If we're being asked to make an exception to wp:politician in this case, we need to understand the basis for the request.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See my recent additions to the article. Hopefully this will convince you of her notability. I remain puzzled as to why you think her unnotable when the entire press is talking about her!

I don't think I am involved in a "dispute". As far as I know, non-Singaporean editors generally have not shown any interest in editing articles about our elections. (I mean this in the most respectful way possible.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your additions that introduced strong criticism. But I still don't understand: Are you saying that we should overrule wp:politician in this case because she's in some way a controversial candidate, and therefore has (as you say) generated more press reports and negative internet buzz than other candidates receive? If there are constraints on what you're able to say in a public forum, my e-mail is accessible. Or you could post links to relevant sources here; they need not be wp:reliable for the purpose here. Sorry if the question is offensive in any way; I don't mean it so. But I know almost nothing about the extent to which freedom of speech is permitted in Singapore concerning political candidates.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it a google should be sufficient. She is notable because it is apparent to many that she does not deserve to be in Parliament, but because of Singapore's electoral system, has a high chance of being instituted into Parliament anyway. Please read the plethora of sources I have cited for my addition, which constitute a small fraction of the national (and international) buzz out there. She symbolises the election because if she wins, it will be especially apparent to many that the system is obviously broken, but if she loses (along with heavyweight Goh Chok Tong), it will be a major upset in favour of the Opposition, which is of course, notable. Chee Soon Juan was never elected either, yet by your criteria you would delete him too. I frankly find the criteria ridiculous as WP:POLITICIAN is something better suited for American politics, not Singaporean politics. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing -- would you delete random articles on notable North Korean officials simply because they were appointed "candidates" that weren't really elected? Why should WP:POLITICIAN apply to their case? Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'd surmised much of what you're saying here from my own web search. I don't need you to say so, or to confirm my observation since I've read that the Singaporean government monitors internet communications, but it's my impression based on my own web search that Tin Pei Ling is garnering so much criticism because she's just another "yes (wo)man" for the current regime in Singapore, and a particularly vapid one, e.g. her comment that she can't think of any existing policies she'd like to change.

I better understand you harsh tone in this thread, now: I, too, would take umbrage if an appointed candidate like her were shoved figuratively down my throat. Please remember, though, that you won't do your purpose any good here by meeting uninformed responses with an aggressive reply.

On consideration, I agree with you that wp:politician can only be reasonably applied to countries that have a free and open electoral process. It makes no sense to invoke that policy in the context of a government that puts up essentially sham "candidates" and ushers them into office using "machinery" that it controls. The basis of Tin Pei Ling's notability that you're suggesting is that she constitutes a blatant example of a contravention of a free and open democratic process, and one that appears to have energized the populace in contempt and outrage, if I understand correctly. That seems entirely plausible to me.

I'd comment that it's not only Singapore's lack of a free and open electoral process that needs special consideration here, but also its lack of a genuinely free press. This, for example, is from our Government of Singapore article:

... the Government has been criticized for using unfair election tactics, such as discouraging voting for opposition parties in the 2006 general election by stating that wards that elect opposition candidates will receive state-subsidized improvements to public housing only after all PAP-held wards have been attended to. It has also been accused of violating freedom of speech through Ministers bringing defamation suits against opposition politicians, and by restricting the circulation of foreign newspapers deemed to have engaged in domestic politics.

Our notability standards are based on the idea that a person's notability is determined by her press coverage, but how can that fairly be applied to political issues when a government prevents freedom of the press? In such a circumstance, I'd suggest that alternate media must be considered, and I see that even the 30th page of web search results I get for the string ( "Tin Pei Ling" Singapore ) is still about the subject.

I'm now leaning in favor of "keep" for the reasons I've given here. I need to investigate further before I !vote, but I certainly don't think the "speedy delete" suggested below would serve the interests of the encyclopedia at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Clearly fails the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN as the subject has not held national office or a significant elected position at any level. Those are the criteria that have to be met. If elected then an article can be created. I note that the threats made by User:La goutte de pluie should be retracted immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make any threats, calm down. I simply thought the afd ill-advised and was about to apply WP:SNOW, but I guess I will not. WP:POLITICIAN is not the policy to apply here. She is notable for not being a politician and for being ridiculed for not being politician material by the Singaporean electorate. Why is this notable? She is a candidate fielded by the ruling party, which has generally won every general election and has a huge advantage in all its contests. Therefore, there is much commentary on Tin Pei Ling simply because she represents the state of Singaporean democracy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie made a threat to speedy close this. We don't pick and choose which policies to apply here. Subject also clearly fails the general notability guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages I remember had a very enlightened use of policy. I don't think I am cherrypicking. But do explain, since I have gone to great lengths to explain her notability to you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject has had significant coverage in many notable and reliable sources. How does she clearly fail" WP:GNG? Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject is probably notable, but I am quite shocked at an administrator's blatant vitriol amidst the general elections in her own country. For instance, on another Singaporean politician's page, this edit is quite telling. The page's history records the objections raised against the removed content; objections such as using reliable sources, and writing in a more neutral tone. The Tin Pei Ling article suffers from the same problem. It's a fact that Tin has received bad press but the article is of very poor quality and is too openly motivated by an anti-PAP agenda. Chensiyuan (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chensiyuan would have done better, I think, to disclose that he has been an active participant at the article he mentions, as can be seen from its page history. His political views evidently oppose those of the editor he criticizes. He has reverted multiple editors who have introduced the information in the edit he linked to. The word "infamous" in that particular edit does violate NPOV, based on the sources used, but it can hardly be characterized as "blatant vitriol", or as anything remotely resembling "blatant vitriol". I'd suggest that he not make any further criticisms of his opponent here; they're not relevant to the topic at hand, which is the notability of the subject of this article. I have never edited in the area of Singaporean politics, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proper pursuit of NPOV policy would encourage editors with such concerns to rephrase the facts to a more neutral tone. At the moment I cannot see how to properly include his criticisms to make it a fair article without sounding slightly vitriolic. Maybe Balakrishnan shouldn't have said those words? I think it is responsible editing to include the facts. I don't know about you, but about half my Singaporean friends on my facebook feed -- from very wide and diverse circles -- are denouncing Balakrishnan. Maybe for good reason? And yet the Balakrishan article has no hint of even that strong a backlash. The "NPOV view" is not the "pro-PAP" view, sanitised to be free of controversy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll say one thing to both sides, if you delete this article the please delete Nicole Seah too.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also nominated Nicole Seah at AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject is primarily a politician so should qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, she doesn't and almost always we don't host such BLP articles unless they are independently noteworthy which this person is not - falling back on the minimal WP:GNG in such cases is not a verification of true wikipedia notability. She is simply not notable here unless she wins. Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. As another Singaporean, I must say I am just as astonished by this nomination, and that the only way some people would push for its deletion is to cite some wikipolicy and attempting to follow it to the last without realising just how ridiculous this whole thing is. At least be consistent in your arguments. First, some of you argue she falls under WP:POLITICIAN for "being a politician", and then some of you argue she does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN as she is just a nominee. So if she does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, why threat her as a politician? If we are going to follow rules to the last, let us split hairs, shall we? If she does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, then I am pretty sure both she and Nicole Seah qualifies under the basic rules of WP:BIO and WP:N. Finally, while I do not support the above admins behaviour which would be considered rash, I can sympathise with his frustration, and the general frustration many editors from smaller countries feel when casual, obviously not very informed individuals simply flag articles for non-notability just because they do not know much about what happens in other countries, and who do not seem to take the very basic initiative of at least doing a google search, which garnered a whooping 1,110,000 results. If that do not amount for WP:N for a country of only 5 million, I do not know what else qualifies. Make her run for the US presidency?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

She is a politician that is why we treat her as one, she is not notable at all in en wikipedia policy. What shall we do with a bio of a political failed candidate, delete it, and what we do is we don't create them and that stops us having to delete all the losers. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have said, let's split hairs. According to WP:POLITICIAN, she is not a politician, so WP:POLITICIAN do not apply. And quit trying to exaggerate the situation, because we are obviously discussing only two very high profile cases. If there are other non-notable failed political candidates with articles here, then it is your onus to flag it for deletion. Allow me to remind that the result of this discussion applies only to this article, because notability is generally threated on a case-by-case basis. Kindly readup on the wikipolicies yourself, if you are going to follow it to the book.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

She is a political candidate end of - not notable unless elected or has some other notability which she doesn't at all. You might be interested it her but the world and en wikipedia is not - unless she wins the seat. Off2riorob (talk)

"Has some other notability which she doesn't at all". I am sorry, but did you do a simple google search? I just said there are over a million articles on her right now, which is quite an astonishing number for a country of this size, along with a controlled media which is unlikely to report too much about her. Not notable? Since when did WP:N reach such God-like levels to qualify, or did something change overnight during all the years I was here? And back to the "political" thing. As I have said, if a person merely runs as a political candidate, then sorry, that does not qualify them as a politician even in real life, let alone in wikipedia. Do you call a police applicant a policeman before his application is accepted?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Like Nicole Seah, I would argue that Tin Pei Ling is more of a celebrity than a politician (at least, pre-election), and should be judged as such. Compare the media reports of Mr. Seah Kian Peng, a ruling-party candidate in the same constituency as Ms. Tin, with the media reports of Ms. Tin, and you can see how much more of a celebrity Ms. Tin has become. Combined with the social media backlash against her, I think that she is notable in a Singaporean context and therefore worthy of an article, regardless of her current political success or future achievements. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. "I'm referring to the hottest name in Singapore these last few days - Tin Pei Ling" said the second largest newspaper in Singapore, even if it is government controlled. It's not her role as a candidate that's notable; what makes her notable is that she's a candidate at all, and especially the outrage that has sparked across the nation. When an entire nation is engaged in a heated controversy about someone, I don't care two cents whether she's a politician or a candidate or a school crossing guard. Anyway, I'd suggest to those who want to keep the article that it would be a more effective strategy to add cites to the article than to just argue here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, whether she wins or loses, we'll end up having an article about her. In fact, in the hugely unlikely event that she were to lose the essentially rigged election, she'd become even more notable than if she "won". A loss would mean that the people of Singapore had finally said, "Screw the consequences, we've had enough of rigged elections." Read our article on Chee Soon Juan, as one user suggested above, and you'll understand what I mean.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Call to order. There have been a number of comments above claiming that someone who passes WP:GNG is somehow not notable because she is a politician and does not also pass WP:POLITICIAN. There is a grain of truth in this, but basically it's nonsense. WP:POLITICIAN is just a subsection of WP:BIO. The main criterion of WP:BIO is WP:BASIC, which is a slightly stronger form of WP:GNG. The question what happens if a person passes GNG but not BASIC need not concern us because the subject of this article appears to pass BASIC as well: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:BIO is very clear that a person who passes BASIC is usually notable regardless of the other criteria, and that in fact just passing one or more of the other criteria listed under "additional criteria", e.g. POLITICIAN, is not sufficient. Hans Adler 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as she passes WP:BASIC. I note that there are broken links in the references section. In particular the link in the last footnote does not work for me (server not found), although I can see the content of the page in the Google cache. I also note for editors from Singapore that offline sources and non-English sources are OK both as references in the article and for making it even clearer that she passes WP:BASIC. Hans Adler 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I suspect the people citing WP:POLITICIAN as a reason to delete have not actually read it, since the last section states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."" (emphasis mine). Tin Pei Ling gets a 100+ references in Google News across all of Singapore's main media (and some neighbors' as well), and thus easily qualifies. Jpatokal (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: the press coverage relates to only one thing, her candidacy so WP:POLITICIAN is relevant, WP:ONEVENT is also relevant. The subject is not notable for anything else than being nominated for election. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Both BLP1E and BIO1E provide for cases in which a person is of sufficiently high profile to warrant a separate article. I am sure she is notable enough in Singapore to apply that, and therefore she is notable enough to apply that. Hans Adler 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  She's not a mere candidate. She's also managing the PR campaign for all of the PAP -- under the same premise of youth "connecting" with voters. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources tells me she is notable. GB fan (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - References show that she is notable (GNG) so the article should be kept. Ougro (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates