Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard soosay


 * 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 defaulting to Keep, sources found during the debate suggest some notability but some remain onconvinced that they meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Leonard soosay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a recreated version of a recently deleted page. By spelling the title in a different way (lowercase 's' in the last name) it comes back as new. Rien (talk&#92;stalk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, with a lean toward speedy. If there's a link, somebody can G4 this in a heartbeat. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep, on account of Phil Bridger's contributions. A note to EconomicBR, I've seen people with far, far fewer ghits survive on account of WP:SNOW, demonstrating that there is no such thing as "mathematical proof" of non-notability - see WP:AADD.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was speedied so not G4 eligible, unfortunately. Delete, regardless, fails notability by a mile or five TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it, it was an A1. Still, I'd lean toward an A7 given that. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Today newspaper says he's one of Singapore's foremost indie music producers. The National Youth Council of Singapore says he's a regional industry great Isn't that enough for notability? There are plenty more reliable sources readily available from a simple Google search. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the article you point out, but that PDF document you show might be a winner. Anything else? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not quite sure why you dismiss the article in Today - it's a major newpaper with a circulation of over half a million. Anyway here are some more sources:      . The coverage may not be extensive in most cases but the sources do all refer to him as one of Singapore's top producer/engineers. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - If someone merits a five day deletion discussion, they also merit correct spelling. If the article isn't moved before, it is also difficult to track recreations after an AfD results in delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response, I was thinking it's just easier to rename/move following the keep, which it appears this will be. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving an article before nominating for deletion is always a good idea, IMO, because on AfD there is a chance of keep in which case it is already correct, and in the case of deletion you have the link to the AfD at the right place (and an indirect reference via the deleted redirect). Otherwise the next article creator or tagger may not be aware that this has already been discussed at AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N, I Googled it and came back with only 1,500 results, that's mathematical proof of non-notability although disputable, Google's result is still meaningful. He needs more fame. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  10:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's the quality of sources that counts, not the quantity, and don't you think that "mathematical proof" is putting it a bit strongly? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see here... a real mess of an "article" created by a editor with a single purpose account, muddled format, generic (non-specific) "award citations", recreation of a deleted article. Did I leave anything significant out? Strong delete. No systematic bias here - notable Singaporeans have articles in Wikipedia: there are ways of demonstrating notability as Singapore has the greatest Web penetration in the world. B.Wind (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is anyone piling on with these delete comments actually going to address the fact that I have provided reliable sources to show that the subject is notable? I feel like I'm talking to brick wall. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not piling on - and I'd suggest looking beyond the first paragraph. By the way, notability is but one consideration as to the suitability of an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Look at similar, well established articles about people in similar positions (I'd recommend one or two that have been around for at least one year), and see what's missing from this article compared to those others. The latter 80% of this article lacks credibility and needs to be removed or cleaned up, for example. If Mr. Soosay is significant enough for an article, make sure that his career is well-documented with specifics. Don't just say he won a "best score for television" award without giving the name of the people who sponsored it. One last thing: if it continues to look like an extended business card, it will be deleted. Looking at WP:MOS would help if this is to be saved. B.Wind (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he won that award, but I did put in the effort to establish that this is a notable subject which should have an article. If you don't like the last 80% of the article you can remove it by editing - there's no need for an administrator to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look immediately above "references." At this point, everything between the first paragraph and "references" need to be purged. In addition, the Infobox disagrees with the article title as to the individual's name. B.Wind (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources cited by Phil Bridger suggest notability rather than proving it. However, he is consistently referred to as a significant indie producer who has been involved with developing (at least some) notable bands.  It's enough evidence to convince me that he is probably a notable figure in his field and that more sources are out there.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 22 March 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.