Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Yee


 * 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 no consensus, leaning keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Amos Yee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

seems to be known for only one thing, therefore BLP1E and fails to reach required level of notability nonsense ferret  14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename Originally the article was named Arrest of Amos Yee. It could be renamed to that with almost no other changes then would not be subject to rules about biographies and obviously pass WP:GNG. That aside, this person has been covered in media over time for multiple reasons. Most of their coverage is about their 2015 arrest, but in 2012 the person also went in the news for making a controversial video, and there is other coverage about this person's acting in a mainstream movie. It might be meaningful to rename this content and frame the coverage around the international news coverage of the arrest and its response if WP:BLP1E is a concern.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that changing the name of an article does not stop it being subject to the rules about biographies, indeed the first line of BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". --nonsense ferret  01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This non historical people should't be in wikipedia, and where this person also critical founding father of independent Singapore Late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Shujuan5210 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious comment Notability is the issue here, not "historical" qualities, and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT SageGreenRider (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename as per User:Bluerasberry's reasons. DORC (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant international news coverage, plus doesn't look like it will die down anytime soon (though thats mainly due to the delay between the arrest and the sentencing). Thats the wiki-me speaking. (Though personally, I would have voted delete as it feeds his ego.) Zhanzhao (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. While notability is an issue, I feel there are very good non-policy reasons as to why this article needs to be deleted: there is speculation that the subject of this article has narcissistic personality disorder; having seen the video clip of him walking out of the judicial courts after being charged, it strongly appears that he doesn't care about getting negative attention, he just craves it. Having a Wikipedia article on him will surely feed his cravings for attention more, and I believe this web site has a social responsibility not to let him indulge in his narcissistic fantasies. P.s. I was already planning to log into my long-disused Wikipedia account solely to just nominate this article for deletion, on the basis of notability and my stated reasons as well. --A.K.R. (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I gathered, you believe this article should be deleted because you disagree with this person? Wikipedia should not be censored because you disagree with the subject matter.


 * Also, as others have pointed out, Amos Yee has reliable sources that talk about him. Therefore, giving him notability. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Amos is obviously not notable enough. There are many people who has either made seditious remarks or slander against the government, charged and jailed but do not have a wikipedia page. Most notably, Joe Gordan, jailed 2.5 years for insulting the Thai Monarch (http://asiancorrespondent.com/71546/american-jailed-for-2-5-years-for-insulting-thai-monarchy/). Why should a nobody like Amos Yee have a wikipedia page. Having international media reporting on him for a day to cover the lack of interesting news doesn't equate to notability. --muckysock94 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "Other stuff exists" (or in this case doesn't exist) isn't a strong argument either way. See WP:OSE. Just because no-one has gotten around to writing about Joe Gordon yet isn't relevant. What you are suggesting would lead to an impasse. "We can't write about Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,001 yet because Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,000 doesn't have an article yet." SageGreenRider (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a tough one. WP:BLP1E challenges the notability of the bio version of the article (it looks like most of the information about his other work are sourced to articles from the last couple days) while WP:EVENT and WP:GNG require coverage that persists over time. We might consider WP:WEBCRIT for an article about the video, but that too assumes coverage over time. It does look like coverage will continue, which inclines me to !vote weak keep since it seems like there's a notable topic in here, even if it requires renaming/refocusing. The problem is that it's conceivable, albeit far from likely, that the arc of the story dies off over the next day or two (for example, if all charges are dropped and no new videos come out). If that happens, it would wind up failing GNG/EVENT. That such a situation is possible makes me hesitant to say keep on a strict policy level (personal predictions of future coverage are not supposed to factor in). I will say, however, that the delete !votes above are particularly poor. non-policy reasons are typically discounted by whoever closes this discussion. The idea that we should only cover a person accused of a crime if that person doesn't want us to cover him/her is seriously problematic per WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP).  what he did to become notable isn't really important and nobody has argued that "'he slandered...' thus he's notable", so you're burning a straw man. All that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable sources -- coverage which persists over time. You should also be aware that arguing for deletion on the basis of no demonstrated coverage over time just means it'll be deleted for the time being -- it doesn't prevent it from being recreated as soon as that "over time" is satisfied. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some unnecessary confusion here. Is the article unquestionably a BLP? yes. Does it therefore fall withing BLP1E? Yes, in this case it does. Will there be future coverage of this person? It is clearly inappropriate to base an argument for keeping an article based on what we think might happen in the future, it is clear that WP:TOOSOON applies in such a case. --nonsense ferret  23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep ignoring the cites from 2012 which are about the prior video, his acting prize, and his appearance in a notable film? Just curious... SageGreenRider (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Several of the cites are from 2012 about the earlier video, so the coverage and notability (or infamy) is sustained. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now that I've had the chance to look, yes, there are sufficient sources from before the last few days to satisfy one or more of the notability criteria. Beyond those in the article also see: Popspoken, SINdie, Alvinology, and, the best of these, Yahoo News. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This argument fails to address the fact that this is a BLP we are dealing with, not just any old notability guideline. The precedent is quite clear - if you are known for only one thing, you don't have an article about you no matter how many milion news articles there might be. --nonsense ferret  01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * sure it does. If you are known for only one thing... The entire point of my comment was that there's sufficient coverage from outside the event of the last few days to satisfy concerns of BLP1E. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\


 * Strong Keep With nearly twenty citations from clearly reliable sources, notability is clearly not an issue. WP:BLP1E is not relevant in that only one of the three required criteria for invoking that principle is met (Yee's role was both central to the issue at hand and well-documented, and it seems likely coverage of these events will persist, with a correspondingly raised profile for the subject). The few other objections raised above have no policy basis, with the singular exception of Rhododendrite's observation that persistent coverage may not be established.  However, as SageGreenRider's notes immediately above, some sources have spoken to the topics notability extending back to 2012 and, far more compelling, the context that this is a censorship issue attached to Lee Kuan Yew's name means that the resulting legal battle will almost certainly be subject of ongoing coverage. I fully appreciate that there is an element of WP:CRYSTALBALL in any such assessment, but I feel fairly comfortable that this topic can be (even at present) said to be one of non-transient coverage.  S n o w  let's rap 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This analysis of BLP1E seems to me completely at odds with well established precedent such as Ian Huntley and Ian Brady, both of whom have thousands more articles in the press about them but do not qualify - it really looks like different standards are being applied to the current article for some reason. --nonsense ferret  01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because information about Huntley and Brady are already present in large volume in another article. The same cannot be said for this article. starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that argument doesn't work at all - those articles were deleted not because there was other articles, but because they did not qualify. --nonsense ferret  01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, note that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and not relevant to determining whether this article is consistent with policy. I can't speak as to how those discussions progressed (though I can't imagine the fact that the content in question was already found in other articles didn't have an impact as many users will glad !vote for a "delete and merge" option in cases where they would not support removing a notable topic from the project outright), but in any event, as regards this article, the reading of BLP1E is pretty explicit that all three criteria must be met and in this case they are not.  S n o w  let's rap 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't gloss over those precedents without looking at what it means for the present case - why should we create an exception here when so many more difficult cases in the past with hundreds of times the amount of coverage that the present case has were not exceptions to the rule --nonsense ferret  19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like is either disingenuous or clueless. Articles for deletion/Ian Huntley never existed. Articles for deletion/Ian Brady was merged to Moors murders with the nom rationale that "the recent development of that article there's no longer any need for this one". Furthermore, nonsenseferret seems to be ignoring the entire 2011-2015 section, which indicates notability beyond the 2015 arrest. starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  04:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "disingenuous or clueless" looks awfully like a personal attack - I think you should withdraw that, you should know better. The precedent here is that despite enormous amounts of news coverage over a sustained period of time about both Brady and Huntley, they do not qualify for an article in their own name. That is well established here and you could name a large number of similar cases that have been dealt with in the same way. If Amos Yee is only famous for making some public statements which then get him into trouble, that is no different to Ian Brady carrying out a number of murders.--nonsense ferret  19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the conversation here from all angles. There are several perspectives here and it is best that everyone be WP:NICE., I think you are sincere and thoughtful. , I appreciate your comments, and hope that you can see how people of different cultures can have perspectives that go beyond what seems best in the context of another culture. The reasons why someone supports a proposal can be the same cause for someone to oppose it, and we should all support each other here for having an engaging conversation.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's multiple things I feel that nonsenseferret has misrepresented or ignored. I don't know if such mistakes are intentional or not, but I hope they're unintentional. Framing the two Ians as being deleted (just because their articles didn't exist) was a mistake, because one was a merge and the other had no AfD. Applying the precedents, this article would be merged (or renamed) in this case to Arrest of Amos Yee. Not answering arguments that Yee had further notability from 2011-2015 before the 2015 video is another mistake. starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  22:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no mistake - the precedent is clear - there should not be a biographical article about this person. You seem not to appreciate that the calls for rename are an acceptance of the arguments I've been putting forward. The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me. Continuing to accuse me of misrepresentation does not represent much of a recognition of not making personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. --nonsense ferret  22:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on your comment "The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me."? Does it mean you are in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? Also, my interpretation of the "Keep or rename" opinions is that the person's first choice is "keep" but failing that to rename and not delete. I don't interpret such opinions as being an acceptance of your opinion (as I think I understand it) that the the article be deleted completely. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my latest comments. A rename is the middle ground - then BLP1E is entirely rebuffed. I'm interested in compromise, how about you? starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument has been consistently throughout that there is clear precedent to show that there should not be a biography of this person on wikipedia. The inclusion of some of the content about his arrest in a separate article is not of any interest to me at all. Of course someone else may well wish to argue that NOTNEWS would apply to such an article, but that won't be me. My only interest was while I was answering queries in #wikipedia-en-help a helpee asked why we should have an article about this teenager, and looking into it, it did seem to me that BL1E would apply taking into account the many other examples of its application. I totally get why people want to champion the cause of freedom of speech but the decision to move content into an article focused on a biography of Amos Yee was not the correct decision. I assume the bit you wish to stand by was the personal attack of my deliberately misrepresenting arguments. --nonsense ferret  23:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - you have misunderstood what you believe to be a personal attack. Feel free to read my previous statement again. I don't wish to repeat myself. starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - The issue here is not whether freedom of speech is good or bad nor what system of government is good or bad. It's simply one of "should there be an encyclopedia article about this person?" Again I ask you: Are you in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? And again I ask you "What is your opinion of the 2012 cites?" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to understand nonsenseferret's position. Personally, I think it's a clear keep. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment editor of this articles, i sure you want it to keep :) Shujuan5210 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes,, but maybe you are confusing cause and effect? I believe the article should be kept, so I contributed. It is not the case that I contributed, therefore I believe it should be kept. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename - per Bluerasberry. If the BLP violates BLP1E, move it (back) to Arrest of Amos Yee, because the number of international reliable sources coverage means that this is simply not going away. starship.paint ~ ¡ Olé !  01:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is enough here to justify notability for an article. It is now obvious that there is genuine notability here, made possible by the reaction of the Singapore authorities – for arresting a kid who is not even 17 for not only not eulogising LKY but also conveniently arresting and charging him for making a vid that insulted him and Jesus. Not only does the whole world now know about Yee's video, it also knows that LKY is not universally revered, and that Singapore has draconian laws as to what can and cannot be said. It has also spawned a host of reactions, including video riposts from other vloggers. The real question is whether the arrest and the circumstances surrounding it ("the Arrest") ought to be the subject of an article, or whether Yee passes WP:ONEEVENT and therefore justifies having an article. I believe that his winning a prize for Best Actor at the age of 13, added to this spectacular arrest, is sufficient to make Amos Yee the better (and more complete) subject of a WP article as compared with The Arrest. Typically in situations like this, editors are left to contemplate whether there is sufficient material for more than one article. Before any article on the matter was created, I contemplated making Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead! the focus. However, in the best case assuming we had enough material, we could even have a family of articles namely: Amos Yee, the arrest of Amos Yee, and Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead!. Right now, I judge that one article is sufficient, and that it should reside in the 'Amos Yee' namespace. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is an issue, the subject has much more negative impact in different sources and I'm fully agreed with A.K.R. (talk). --A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the 2012 cites? Also WP:NOTCENSORED SageGreenRider (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This case (and I think this person) is just getting started. He is currently under arrest and the story is getting more attention. Plus I dont think we've heard the last of this case nor of Amos Yee. More and more people are looking for the wiki entry for him to get more info on his situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribleidea (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep! The subject is clearly notable; editors have done a good job of showing this is for more than one reason.  The video is a rare honest voice adding a discordant note against that vast crowd of sycophants who sing the praises of creating a "wealthy" society via massive income inequality and hard labor for all but those at the top.  I want to see us follow the political dimensions of this prosecution throughout the world, and I want to be able to track the technical details as they come out (notably, we see Yee talk throughout most of the video, but not during any of the 'anti-Christian' passages that highlight the charges.  Hmmmmm....)  We therefore have both sound policy and sound motivation to explore this topic in full detail. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.