Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bevan Chuang

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. seems a clear BLP1E and marginal notability - meaning that the subjects request to delete can be given weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan Chuang

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

Borderline notability. I think we should take these edits [1] [2] by @BevChuang: as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE -- haminoon (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE covers "biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures". The first two paragraphs of the article as it stood at the time the user with the name BevChuang blanked it established her as a community leader, political figure, and even publicity hound. She continued to receive mention in New Zealand news sources in 2015, mostly but not entirely in connection with her affair. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete significant BLP Concerns. The article contains a lot of negative coverage. As for being a "community leader" that's a vague term. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Negative coverage (a) that is validated by multiple citations; (b) that is significant, not peripheral, to her notability; and (c) which she, herself, has acknowledged publicly. Where is the problem? Largoplazo (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that an anonymous IP turns up with a limited edit history... LibStar (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you felt that my browser logging me out obviates my substantive comments. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Has enough coverage to meet general notability criteria. If there are BLP concerns, that can be addressed through editing. Schwede 66 18:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability rests solely on the liaison with Len Brown. Remainder of article is filled with trivia. Nothing here to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Len_Brown#Extramarital_Affair as all the coverage stems from connection to Len Brown. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems that the only claim to notability is a form of inherited argument: the subject is only notable for an association with someone else. At best the page should give a brief mention along with other notability (possibly with the episode in question discussed in more depth elsewhere), but the present page seems to me to be unnecessarily personal to a non-notable subject. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant content into Len Brown as per StuartYeates. Has no merit otherwise. NealeFamily (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a living local body political figure who has not faded from the scene after her affair with Len Brown. She has involvement in other community organisations and is likely to appear again in future local body elections as a candidate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"likely to appear again " is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. What I am arguing is that her notability continues after the Len Brown affair. For example she was a pro-democracy protest organiser in 2014. I don't think we should be deleting an article about someone who has achieved notoriety for one event but continues to come to public attention for other activities afterwards - even if they are currently less notable. Merging with Len Brown is not really appropriate, either, because much of her background and subsequent activities have nothing to do with the Len Brown affair. I think it is too soon to consider deletion and suggest that the article be given a year or so to mature. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cameron Dewe's argument. Schwede 66 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing of significance beyond the Len Brown affair in the article - everything else is minor, even her so called public activities NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Len Brown#Extramarital affair. I've been persuaded to strike out my Keep !vote above (based on the notability question—there is no BLP-privacy issue here for this woman who speaks openly and at length with the media), but the affair was notable, and it's already written up, so let's redirect people there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting to Len Brown seems very dubious to me. We don't have to follow the lead of gutter journalism. I'd prefer it was redirected to Auckland mayoral election, 2013 (which she stood in and the affair was a fallout of) or not redirect at all. -- haminoon (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primary objection to having a dedicated article for her is that she's known essentially for one thing. Her affair with Len Brown is that thing, it was a significant event, and the Len Brown article is where coverage on her appears. It isn't "gutter journalism", it's supposedly the main reason people know who she is.

You appear to be mistaken that she stood in the 2013 mayoral election, given that that article excludes her from the list of candidates and that the article about her says that the election she stood in in 2013 was for the Albert-Eden Local Board. Therefore, there is no reason why her name should redirect to that article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I meant Auckland local elections, 2013. -- haminoon (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, running in an Auckland local election isn't what she's primarily known for. If it could even be considered as contributing to her notability, then she'd be notable on two fronts—her affair and the election—and then we wouldn't have all these "delete" votes based on the notion that she has no notability outside of the affair. On top of that, she isn't mentioned in the local elections article anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both those wanting keep the article aeem to be saying it is too soon to delete. Surely under WP:TOOSOON the reverse applies. NealeFamily (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.