Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Fook Kwang


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Han Fook Kwang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

subject fails WP:INDY as it has not been discussed extensively in third-party sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for attention to this page. Based on your feedback, I have added external references from
 * Bloomberg Business Week Database.
 * Links from external sources where he serves.
 * A Published Book by World Scientific talking about the person. I linked to a Google Book version for better checking of the references.
 * Many other miscellaneous references from conferences, web etc

Hope this satisfies WP:INDY objections. -- KennethTan1971 —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asian_journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Singaporean_journalists
 * Delete Newspaper and journal editors are not considered notable unless of particular achievement. Engleham (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are newspaper journalist considered Notable ? I note Journalist and Newspaper Editor has full sections on wikipedia.

Han was the Editor of StraitsTimes for 10 years. It is the biggest newspaper in circulation in Singapore. KennethTan1971 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue here is that there are not enough reliable sources independent of Straits Times and Singapore Press Holdings (where the subject works). I am aware that the subject served as editor: but that doesn't make it inherently notable. I have previously voted to delete journalists (even if they were the chief editor) because there were no independent sources. What we need is sources which address the subject in detail. These sources also need to be reliable (with a proven track record of editorial review), independent of the subject's affiliations and secondary (this excludes interviews). The book "100 Inspiring Rafflesians" for example is a secondary source although we generally don't use organisational alumni related books for notability. The links to conferences are not considered reliable sources (they are self published). I'm going to try and search some more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but I haven't really been able to find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject's affiliations. The interviews are primary, the mentions in the bloomberg/crunchbase do not help for notability. The conference references are not RS. Unfortunate delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 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.