Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Keong


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Keong

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

this is a WP:BLP1E with lots of other BLP implications - I fail to see how he's notable even for a crime, much less as an academic. PRAXIDICAE💕 11:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Hi, I am really sorry to interrupt but I do not understand how the subject is a low-profile individual. As a member of the community that the subject was once in, everyone knew the subject, and after the subject was on national news, it’s quite clear he is not a low-profile individual. He’s not only known for one event; he was known for a couple, which one has been deleted to meet the guidelines. Could you please at least consider this? FedFoxEx (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, to add on I’ve used many reliable sources as the citations, such as ABC news (public broadcaster), 7 news, courier mail, etc. FedFoxEx (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are really two events here, but only one we can mention: (1) some minor kerfuffle involving religious instruction in state schools five years ago, (2) recent criminal charges not yet resolved. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot mention (2) in our article, nor even use any sources that are primarily about it. That leaves only (1) as the basis of an article, and as an individual event that does not appear to have any ongoing interest (except maybe peripherally in connection with the criminal charges) it does indeed fail WP:BLP1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello there, as I am fairly interested in this subject I believe it is fair to consider other's opinions. The original creator of the article had no intention to criticise, nor create a false article to attack the subject. I understand the creator has received warnings based on there actions towards publishing the article, however I cannot understand why this can't be negotiated. The page provides all necessary, and extremely reliable sources, even though some of them are bound to your strict policy about criminal allegations. If these weren't included, The case on religious instruction is actually a serious issue which took place, and now shapes the curriculum at the subjects previous workplace. These were supported by numerous citations and sources. I am personally offended by David Eppstein's comment about a "Minor Kerfuffle" as I experienced extreme discrimination as a result of the situation. As a Wikipedia editor, David Eppstein should reconsider his language before reviewing issues that they have no personal experience with. The subject is well known in the Local area as they were common amongst the community. Even though the subject may not be notable in foreign countries such as the United States, the subject's actions have caused drastic effects on their local area. Including the subject's criminal allegations was not intended to attack, or share negative opinions towards the subject, nor provide information that the subject was under bail or experiencing legislative impacts. Rather, it was intended to provide information to others interested in events relating to the subject, and highlight that he has been accused of them. I cannot see how the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, and would appreciate any feedback, and would ask for editors to explain how the page can be improved, in order to be published. Paddyfr21 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering how strongly you feel about this matter and how closely connected you are to it, you might have a COI. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. As long as his legal issues cannot be mentioned as per WP:BLPCRIME, he is a WP:BLP1E character. I agree with David Eppstein that notability is not established. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree with paddyfr21 - you need to see the other perspectives and opinions. I am not sure whether you are in Australia or not, however paddyfr21’s point of the issue being well known in the local area as well as the whole city, potentially the country is a valid point. Even if the legal issues are not included, you stated you agree with Mr. Eppstein’s comments about notability, which I bring back to mr paddyfr21’s comments again; the incident was not a ‘minor kerfuffle’. Given that the subject was on the national prime time news on the national broadcaster (ABC) shows the severity of the case, as well as the reactions from both sides, showing a very sensitive issue. If you have any suggestions to improve the page, then I welcome them. FedFoxEx (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Subject appears to be of local interest only. The BLP looks like an attempted WP:Attack page, an abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Hello there, again this is another misunderstanding. As explained before, the subject is well known locally, and around the city. You stated that the subject 'appears to be of local interest only', yet the subject featured on the prime-time ABC News bulletin that is nation-wide. ABC News is the national broadcaster of Australia. If you want to have a look at a youtube video that was uploaded a couple years ago with the story of that, it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KmIKerODT8 . As well, it featured prominently on news websites such as The Brisbane Times and ABC News' website.  You stated that it is an 'attempted attack page', yet all the editors above clearly never stated that, and the article was written in neutral tone. As explained before, this article has been created to inform, not to attack; we are not abusing the wikipedia platform, so I would advise you review the page carefully first before reaching such conclusion. The issue of the religious instruction clearly is not only of local interest given the coverage it received; clearly it has been a sensitive topic given the response stated in the media. Obviously, it may not be that prominent in foreign countries; I do not know where you are from, however you should factor in everything I said before you reach a conclusion. FedFoxEx (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:BLP1E. Deus et lex (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2022 (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.