Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Fok (3rd nomination)

 * – ( View AfD View log |

The page fails WP:GNG and was created and recreated by a sockpuppet User:ZanciD.

Suitskvarts (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the same reasons as in Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok and Articles for deletion/Anthony Fok (2nd nomination), which the nominator appears not to have addressed other than a WP:VAGUEWAVE at GNG. Ineligible for blocked-sock deletion because the block happened only two weeks ago and the article was created last March; that criterion only works for articles created by someone evading existing blocks at the time of article creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you, but I've looked at sources and read previous discussions. I don't see 3 independent sources required by GNG, do you? Suitskvarts (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a recommendation, not a hard and fast rule. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had read the 1st AfD you would have seen my comment there "Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count." I also don't see a requirement for three sources in GNG, and I don't understand where you think this is a requirement. It says "multiple sources". Two is multiple. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was so accustomed to being usually required to have 3 sources that I considered it a strict rule. Apparently it isn't, but I don't see 2 here either:
 * Straits Times - just meantioned him as one of many members of The SDSC board.
 * CNBC - a few paragraphs, and almost half of that text is a direct quote. This is a WP:PRIMARY, like any interview, but we need a secondary source, right?
 * BBC Worklife - this is a side project like a blog about professions. Over the years a lot of people have been told there. I don't think they all deserve a personal Wiki page. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your opinions about BBC are irrelevant for whether it is in-depth, reliable, and independent. Your comment about whether people "deserve" an article suggests that you have a completely wrongheaded idea about how notability is achieved. We could measure notability by significance of accomplishments, and for a few subject-specific criteria like WP:NPOL we do, but WP:GNG-based notability is not about achievements, it is purely about the existence of in-depth independent sources. As for CNBC, it is a news story like any other. It is secondary, not primary, but GNG does not make that distinction; the thing you need to check instead is whether the author and publisher of the story are independent of Fok, and they are. It includes quotes by Fok that do not contribute to its depth of coverage of him, but it also includes multiple paragraphs of material including quotes by other people that are entirely about Fok. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the Straits Times source, there are three in the current revision:
 * On SDSC. This was added only last night by me after I was inadvertently pinged by Suitskvarts. Definitely not GNG, but merely providing an update to his professional life.
 * , and were present at the time of this AfD written. The first is about him and few other tutors setting up a trade association for private tutors, while the second is a defamation suit against another tutor. The in-depth coverage of him varied, but all in all are indepedent and either writing at length or just simply quoting him.
 * wasn't really Straits Times as TNP was a separate paper before going wholly digital and being merged into Straits Times due to financial issues (see SPH Media). – robertsky (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per previously discussed, "well covered by various sources internationally". Nom does not present arguments different from Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Fok, which was well-attended, except for the blocked-sock deletion. However, as mentioned by David Eppstein above, blocked-sock deletion isn't eligible in this case. Furthermore, more than half of the article had been rewritten/refactored by other editors after the tug-of-war draftification. Side note: personally, I feel that citing local newspaper articles alone for Singapore-related topics may not be sufficient as the same newspapers report on matters concerning all levels of society. However, I am comfortable if there are international newspapers writing articles about him or through him, his profession. – robertsky (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the more famous private tutors out there. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article updated with an online source, and two offline sources from Singapore's National Library Board, which I can give privately via email if needed. Online and 1 offline article added are full article coverage of BLP while remaining offline article is minor source for information. Passes GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2022 (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.