Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Lam (physician)


 * 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. The burden of proof of coughing up reliable sources falls on the "keep" side. But the burden for rejecting them falls on the "delete" side, and they have not sufficiently shown the article to be a hoax. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Lam (physician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable artist; I cannot find any significant coverage on him other than primary sources. (He is not to be confused with the DJ of the same name.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, this edit summary doesn't help matters. The creator tagged the article as a hoax himself? That's a new one.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From looking at the edit history, I think what he is saying is that he now doubts the veracity of some of the citations he's been provided about this person, rather than saying that this is a wikipedia hoax, if you see what I mean? Per below, I've found quite a few supporting citations, so if this is a hoax its a reasonably widespread real world hoax, not a hoax page. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as effectively a db-author. User:Cigarettesmoking created the article and wrote all the substantive content in it, but they later determined that the article was a hoax, so I see no reason to keep this article any more. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Having dug about a bit I've found some refs (parked on the talk page for now), including from Business Week and New Scientist, which backs up stuff like the Asia Society man of the year and various other significant posts. Needs working into the article, but I'd say these establish notabillity fairly clearly. Looking at them, I think he is refered to by different forms of his name than is used in the article, which makes it harder to find refs. e.g. Business week refers to him as 'Dr. Man Kit Lam, Dominic, Msc., Phd' (I found it by searching for the Asia Society thing). Not sure how this sits with the claims of hoax, but they look pretty good sources to me? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Searching under the alt name above bring back a lot more, including this which makes some pretty big claims, e.g. appointed by George HW Bush, did work for the Beijing Olympics, has had his work on Hong Kong Stamps?! http://inano.tongji.edu.cn/Nano_Art/modules/en/jxsz_lwj.shtml email and web address at the bottom match, so seems to be same person?. Very definitely notable if this stands up. If it's a hoax (and given the wide range of stuff indicated it might be) its a very, very widespread one that covers a lot more than just wikipedia. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If all this turns out to be true, I'll withdraw (and rename the article).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a weird one, I've asked the article author to expand upon why they think it's a hoax. I'm going to see if there is a way to independently verify some of the claims as well, e.g. there must be a database somewhere of presidential medal winners?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient evidence that the information in the article is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment there is plenty of evidence that he is notable, and much of it comes from clearly reliable sources. The question is whether some sort of hoax has been perpetrated on those sources? To be honest, unless there is clear evidence of hoax (which there doesn't appear to be), I'm not sure it's wikipedia's job to take that into account? Wikipedia usually just reflects what the sources say, unless something is obviously false. I think at this stage the article should be kept and if evidence of a hoax emerges it can be re-written or removed.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment (copied from talk page) I've integrated the four citations I found into the article, and since they appear to be of good quality I've removed both the OR and CITE tags. I also expanded the timeline section based on the timeline provided in the Inano citation. (this is a pretty close paraphrase in places so may need further rewording).

There is still the question of whether all this is a hoax, as tagged by the article creator? I don't beleive it qualifies as a wikipedia hoax, as the info is clearly cited in reliable sources. The broader question is whether those sources have been the victim of a wide ranging and elaborate hoax? This is very hard to ascertain, unless the article author has reason to beleive otherwise, as was suggested by their edit summary when they put up the hoax tag. It has to be noted that if this is all genuine, Dr Lam is a pretty incredible person, having excelled in art, science, medicine and business! I believe that as it stands, the article should stay as it appears to have reliable sources, I can see no direct evidence of a hoax and if the sources are correct the individual is very clearly notable. This should be reviewed in the light of any future information that comes to light. Note, all of this talk of a hoax is pure speculation, based on the article authors comment. I am concerned that discussing such a hoax may itself become a WP:BLP issue if we are not careful.

I think I might kick this to a wider audience for review, as it's clearly an odd case and I am concerned about potential BLP issues here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The more I look into this, the less it looks like a hoax. I'm still vaguely wondering if there are two Dominic Lams, one a scientist and one an artist, but I can't see any references that distinguish between them so there's no evidence of that. Having gone to the L'Oreal site and independently searched for and found a reference to him winning the award claimed, I find it hard to beleive that this is a hoax as far too many notable organisations would need to have been taken in over a long period of time. I think at this point he should be treated as the genuine article and the citations valid, unless someone can point to an obvious discrepancy that casts doubt on some of this. In that light I'm going to remove the hoax tag, as I can't see anything beyond an unsourced claim from the article author that justifies it. That being the case, this article is a clear keep as notabillity has been comprehensively established with multiple reliable sources. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should be deleted unless its integrity is totally beyond question, which it does not seem to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Can you show me that policy? Also, what question is there? On the one side you have multiple references from reliable sources that clearly establish notability, on the other a vague edit summary? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2011 (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.