Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Sia (2nd 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, consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Sia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was previously nominated for deletion approximately 2 years ago, but I believe that our standards have risen such since then that this person no longer meets the requirements set forth by WP:BIO and others. All the material presented is being sourced by Kenny Sia's personal blog, or other blogs and this thing is quite an amazing libel magnet as well. I will treat this as a procedural nomination for now and withhold my !vote for later if evidence of substantial non-trivial coverage of this subject can be located from reliable third party sources. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you are nominating it for deletion, but you don't actually have an opinion as to whether it should be deleted? I don't see how this is a "procedural" nom, as there is no process compelling you to nominate it. If the person nominating the article does not feel it should be deleted, what are the rest of us to think? Please reconsider or reword your nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And speaking of procedure, you should really have a link to that first AfD here. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I've added the afd2 template to the AfD page; the first AfD is now linked above. Deor (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're not speaking rhetorically, obviously this can and should be deleted if there is nothing in the way of non-trivial publications from third parties about this individual. This is a discussion, not a vote my friend.  RFerreira (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's a discussion, here we are discussing it after all, but in what way is this a "procedural nom"? I don't understand why you say that. Also, isn't a nomination an implied vote to delete? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all that nonwithstanding, it seems that, just as in the last AfD, it comes down to whether or not The Urban Wire which is apparently put out by Ngee Ann Polytechnic as a student publication, is considered a reliable source. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep from their website: "UrbanWire is an online entertainment/lifestyle newsmagazine produced by final-year online journalism students of the School of Film & Media Studies, Ngee Ann Polytechnic in Singapore." Even though the other 12 sources cited are not reliable, being mostly the blog of Mr. Sia, it seems to me UrbanWire is a reliable source, and the article cited is wholly about Kenny Sia and his blog, so it is not trivial coverage. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject lacks multiple non-trivial sources from reliable publications.  News wires and self-published blogs are NOT reliable sources.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep More reliable sources, such as newspaper, magazine publications and websites other than Kenny Sia's, have been included in the reference list. ElectrifyingGuy (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this does it for me. It's not sailing past notability, but I think it's at least rowing.  WLU (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (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.