Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wee Shu Min elitism controversy

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 keep. There seems to be a sense that the current article is unsatisfactory, but no consensus to merge or do other than to keep it for the time being.Kubigula (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min elitism controversy

(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 Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. Its a vicious cycle that should not have started in the first place. DanS76 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DanS76. The incident is no longer notable. Virtuaoski (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment - I think DanS76 was referring to WP:PERSISTENCE. However, as Pax:Vobiscum mentions below, there is significant coverage in several subsequent years (although I haven't checked out those links), which means that it should satisfy that. There should not be an article for the girl herself, though, because of WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident naturally generated the most coverage when it happened in October 2006, but the event continued to be discussed and referred to in the following years showing that it was not a routine event (2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Merging it with Wee Siew Kim would in my opinion create problems with undue weight. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the 2009 book: "the incident became an iconic moment" [2]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident is notable enough, and merging it into the father's article does not seem appropriate as this is an incident related to his daughter and not himself. Doesn't seem appropriate to put on father's page. Despite the fact that the father's page is short, the article is a separate entity. Jab843 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (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.