Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Wong (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. (non-admin closure) — Theo polisme  08:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Wong
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Due to the fact that the article has barely any information, a Wikipedia article on this person is not necessary. I am proposing deletion. -- SelfEx1led (talk) SelfEx1led (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion page created on behalf of nominator. Proposed rationale copied from article talk page. KTC (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The first AfD was a non-admin closure after a speedy for copyvio in 2005; the man meets WP:POLITICIAN. See for example this. § FreeRangeFrog 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes he's a politician - I understand that. But is he still active? I don't see how one sentence or two of information is grounds for having him on Wikipedia, unless there is more information available. I know a Google search pops up more search results, but the information currently on Wikipedia (after the copy-vio) regarding him is clearly inadequate. Unless someone wants to take the time to properly re-do his biography, keeping him on here is pointless, especially when it seems, historically, it has been left alone in this bare state for quite some time. Furthermore, the number of sources on the person right now is just one. In most cases, this would not be enough sources and would be nominated for deletion anyway.
 * SelfEx, I'm striking our your "delete" comment since we are only allowed to "vote" once, and as nominator, your "delete" !vote is understood. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:POLITICIAN before nominating any more politicians for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As notability is not temporary, it doesn't matter if he is still active in politics. Being a stub is perfectly valid. Inclusion or otherwise is determined by the various notability guidelines along with other policies and guidelines, and not by the quality of the article. p.s. As nominator, you don't get a 2nd !vote, but expansion of your rational for deletion are of course welcome! -- KTC (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a former member of the legislature of British Columbia and a minister, Wong meets our notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN when I get a chance a bit later I'll see if I can add a little more to his bio. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep As a member of the provincial assembly he was automatically notable, and thus still is. Biographical information is available here: . --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2012 (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.