Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Teo


 * 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dave Teo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A WP:BLP1E, but the event isn't particularly significant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's true that Wikipedia isn't a news service, but mentions in articles [https://www.google.com/search?q=Dave+Teo&oq=Dave+Teo&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Dave+Teo%22 after 2007 suggest the event has been a lot more than just one news event. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known event in Singapore with broad coverage in reliable sources; notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and in any case Google indicates coverage continued well after the event. — Nizolan  (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It was a major news story, notability is Not Temporary as mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject of this article only seems to be known for one thing (i.e. going AWOL with a wpn in 2007 and being arrested), hence, WP:BLP1E per the nomination. Just because it was a major news story 9 years ago in one small part of the world (i.e. Singapore) does not mean he meets the notability standards of an encyclopedia with a global scope. All the references seem to be local news items from 2007-08 so I can't see any evidence that this has resulted in significant and lasting coverage per WP:SIGCOV. If there was more recent international coverage in non-news sources maybe, but there really is very little available, therefore not "broad coverage" at all. Claims of "WP:NOTTEMPORARY" are wrong-headed as he wasn't notable by our standards in 2007, and he still isn't notable in 2016. That is not to say that the incident doesn't have its place on Wikipedia though, as it would seem to me that a short summary could be included at National service in Singapore. As such a merge and redirect to this article could be a viable alternative to outright deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about "one small part of the world" and asking for "international coverage" seems like WP:BIAS to me, fwiw. The Straits Times (syndicated on asiaone) is Singapore's newspaper of record and therefore national rather than local in scope. It was covered regionally: here's a Chinese article on sina.com half a year after the event; in fact there's a reference to him almost a decade after the event in Vietnamese here (not a significant reference in itself but indicative of continuing notability in view of the range of feature-length articles). There's an article on him on a major Singaporean Buzzfeed-style website (cite) almost a decade after the event here, which even states that "anyone who has been through NS in the army would know about Dave Teo". NOTTEMPORARY is relevant since part of the reason it's difficult to find English sources now is just link rot; the Straits Times archives from 2007–8 don't seem to be available, for instance, though there are still snippets available online. But decade-long coverage should easily meet the requirement of persistency in BLP1E. Most Singaporeans know about this person; he's more than an everyday criminal news event. — Nizolan  (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BLP1E: this person is known only for a single incident, and it wasn't even a particularly significant one. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I can see a lot of work has been done to fully reference the article for which its editors should be commended, I really don't think the subject is notable enough for a stand alone biography article. Would such an individual be covered in a biographical encyclopedia (for instance, does Singapore have an equivalent of Who's Who, such as the New Zealand Dictionary of Biography or the Australian Dictionary of Biography? If so, would they qualify for appearance in that? If not, then I suggest perhaps we are reaching in our inclusion.) The subject appears to have received quite a bit of coverage in the context of that one incident, but otherwise they will likely remain a low profile individual. As such, it seems to me like BLP1E applies here, although as Anotherclown suggests perhaps the topic could be covered as a small part in a wider article (if a suitable one is agreed upon, and obviously being careful not to breach WP:UNDUE). Beyond this, surely the other consideration is the subject's privacy and not impacting upon their ability to rehabilitate on release. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The incident is notable and meets WP:GNG. Rename this article to something like "Dave Teo AWOL incident", to reduce its biographical focus. SST flyer 05:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best and Restart and Rename later if needed as this is all still questionable overall. SwisterTwister   talk  04:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is essentially a news item, see WP:NOTNEWS. Incidents or offenses of this sort happen all over the world all the time and the media cover them; that's their job, not ours. But I don't see the lasting importance of this event for Singapore, its military or anybody else that would justify article-level coverage in an encyclopedia.  Sandstein   09:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - although the work done on this article is to be commended, I feel that this is essentially a news item. I can see no evidence that there is a lasting impact on the locality or the armed forces. As such it appears to be BLP1E case.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:59, 20 April 2016 (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.