Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Dover (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. Or no consensus, depending how you look at it, but there's no consensus to delete here. There's however a strong suggestion emerging from this AfD that the article may need substantial editing to address WP:BLP concerns.  Sandstein  09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Dover
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated the original article for deletion as it was simply an attack page. Although substantially expanded for a new controversy, the current content of the has not changed this orientation. A person of Dover's rank would not usually warrant an article, and the current controversy is a very common problem in HK due to lax enforcement by the Lands Department. The issues being exposed have rightly received press coverage, as Dover as a brutal cop and major hate figure and is considered by most citizens a legitimate political target; Apple Daily, as one of the few unbridled journals has published the findings of its investigation. In my view, the issue will probably be resolved administratively, and the worst that can happen is a demolition order and a fine (but I think it will just get swept under the rug bearing in mind the political climate). How this is dealt with, however, is not relevant to our consideration. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be a vector for doxxing enemies of freedom and democracy (or indeed any other ideology). Until there is more notable "achievements", the article should stay deleted and the space salted. Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although the Apple Daily coverage on it's own would likely not be enough to be notable, the substantial coverage by other secondary sources seem to warrant the retention of this article, as notability seems reasonable. Notability is not necessarily based on "achievements", and even if Apple Daily&apos;s investigation is not found to be just, I think the secondary coverage of Apple Daily&apos;s report and subsequent reactions are notable enough. Per WP:BASIC, IMO there is little question of the notability as the subject has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."--17jiangz1 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't a WP:GNG problem as there's ongoing tabloid coverage of him, it's a WP:BLP issue. I've noted multiple times at the ongoing deletion review that this page really doesn't show the lasting notability of Mr. Dover, someone whose position in a normal city would not lend itself to notability. This page is being used to effectively cover an ongoing scandal in which he has been involved in WP:NOTNEWS format. The article has served as a WP:COATRACK in the past for complaints against his leadership, and is currently covering a minor and ongoing scandal in WP:NOTNEWS format. Per WP:BLP, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This article does not meet that standard. Nothing has changed since October, and this article should be salted if and until a completely neutral, doxproof version of the article can be created. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an update, "Property Controversy" section is clearly not about him or his life and needs to be removed entirely, especially because it duplicates another Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS seem to be the most applicable things here. I don't see how violating planning laws makes someone article-worthy. The rest of his bio is the type of stuff that could be scraped off the web for most people.  Number   5  7  18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the sake of transparency/context, here is the link to the DRV regarding this article that was at one point running simultaneously with this AFD.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think notability is reasonable. Content may be edited in response to the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP principle, or by translating the content beyond the more recent Property controversy, or quoting more sources. Universehk (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per all. And it's obvious not attack page. Wright   Streetdeck  07:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability has been shown, and neutrality is acceptable, at least does not fall into the criteria of an attack page (not entirely negative in tone; not unsourced or poorly sourced). Jonashtand (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This famous guy has already mentioned on many newspapers and fulfilled the requirements of wikipedia. —hoising (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject is notable.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any issues with content and neutrality should be resolved through editing the article, and not deleting it. feminist &#124; wear a mask 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:PP can prevent this from being an attack page. OceanHok (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the DRV, I've seen no attempt to address the very legitimate concerns about BLP violations. Editors shouldn't wait for it to be deleted before once arguing again at DRV that it isn't an attack page and can be improved. There's already some advice above how to improve it, but I fear that there will be little left once the "illegal structure" stuff is trimmed to give the matter its due weight and other trivia removed. As already mentioned, someone of Dovers rank isn't inherently notable, and the fact that Michael Yip, his predecessor, nor others of the rank or below who haven't media career, or haven't been implicated in heinous crimes, don't have a WP article. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUE representation should be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, coverage of Dover has been revolving his participation in the policing of the 2019-20 protests and the property controversy, thus in this case the controversy should be a significant situation. On the other hand, perhaps WP:BLP1E might be applicable, thus the content regarding the property controversy should be moved to a separate article which can also cover similar accusations made towards other police officers and the consequent reactions, although this would leave out Dover's role in the protests, which although has less coverage, is still a significant part of media coverage on him.--17jiangz1 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep.votes don't address the BLP.concerns. Further comment on that would establish if we close by headcount or strength of argument

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  Serious WP:BLP issues, the Rupert Dover is completely inappropriate, as it is a private issue devoid of secondary source coverage from a distant perspective.  The sourcing is essentially investigative journalism plus official sources, all primary source material.  It is a WP:Attack page because it is desperate coverage of anything after the failure to tie the individual, on Wikipedia, to the incident where Hong Kong Police Force shot at protesters.  If stubified by removing the property issue, it is even more clearly non-notable, a senior police officer in the Kowloon West (constituency), and that page does not mention him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep and trim the "Property controversy" section to comply with WP:BLP. Why the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E  Rupert Dover has received significant coverage for three separate events: Chief of the Airport Security Unit (2003): A 2003 article in Apple Daily said that since 1997, the Hong Kong Police focused on promoting Chinese officers instead of foreign officers and then noted that Rupert Dover, a British police officer, is "exceptionally special". The article said Dover "is still highly regarded by the police force today", had been promoted to chief inspector, and was the chief of the Airport Security Unit at the time the article was published. The article said he had been working in the Airport Security Unit for a year and had worked in multiple departments in the past. It said Dover is nicknamed "Airport Tiger". He joined the police force in 1989 and worked in the dignitaries protection group between 1996 and 1999. Before he joined the police force, he studied archaeology at a British university. Actions during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (2019): He received criticism for his actions at multiple demonstrations of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests including the 12 June 2019 Hong Kong protest. A 8 July 2019 article in The Sunday Times said Dover is "a British officer in the Hong Kong police who has become a hate figure for protesters after being seen at a previous demonstration where tear gas and rubber bullets were used". A 9 July 2019 article in The Times said, "No officer has had more abuse than Mr Dover" with protesters carrying photos of him with the message "Shame on HKPF" and said he is "the senior British police officer who has become a symbol of the suppression of antigovernment demonstrations". According to a 2020 World Scientific-published book, "[Dover] said he had instructed tear gas be discharged in his area around Lung Wui Road". The book continued, "Assistant Commissioner Dover, who was singled out for public attention along with a few other foreign-born policemen and even had his role mentioned in the UK Parliament, brushed off accusations of British officers doing Beijing's dirty work." <li>Allegations about violations of government rules (2020): This article from the Hong Kong Free Press provides a good summary of the allegations against Dover related to property violations and his side business. He is being investigated by the Home Affairs Department and the Lands Department.</li> </ol>That Rupert Dover has received significant coverage in three separate instances means the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. BLP1E says, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." WP:BLP and the article's "Property controversy" section  WP:BLPBALANCE says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. After reading Rupert Dover#Property controversy, I think the material is presented "in a disinterested tone" though with regard to presenting the material "responsibly" and "conservatively" the section is too long and detailed. Biographies of living persons says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The most important part about the policy is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". The Rupert Dover Wikipedia article spends 454 words on the "Property controversy" section (71% of the article) and 187 words on the other sections (29% of the article). Biographies of living persons cautions editors to "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events." The property controversy is a recent event that started at the end of April 2020. To address the undue weight concerns, the section can be trimmed and some of the material can be merged to Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force. Trimming the section is preferable to deleting the article per Deletion policy, which says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Sources  I provide sources below about the three separate events. The sources are ordered chronologically. Here is the 2003 Apple Daily article that provides several paragraphs of coverage about Rupert Dover when he was chief of the Airport Security Unit:<ol> <li></li> </ol> Here are the sources I found about his actions during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The book notes: "In April 2020, Assistant Commissioner Rupert Dover, among the first targets of protesters' wrath, revisited the orders he issued that day. As one of six ground operation commands throughout Operation Tiderider, he said he had instructed tear gas be discharged in his area around Lung Wui Road, but was not certain if he was the first to do so. Without going into detail because of an ongoing judicial review into the force's operations that day, Dover recalled that a few official vehicles, one of them carrying a government minister, were surrounded and trapped in an underpass. His mission was to rescue the individuals and clear the crowds. Asked if he realized, before making the command, that those rounds of tear gas would change the course of the movement, Dover said: 'Have I thought that? I was aware of it.' He said the alternative was to march the officers into the crowd knowing protesters overhead would hit them with bricks and other. ..." The book notes: "Assistant Commissioner Dover, who was singled out for public attention along with a few other foreign-born policemen and even had his role mentioned in the UK Parliament, brushed off accusations of British officers doing Beijing's dirty work. 'I don't work for China. I don't work for Beijing. I work for the Hong Kong government. That's why my oath of allegiance was never to the queen, it was to the Hong Kong government. So I work for the Hong Kong people,' said Dover, who was born in Hertford in the UK and joined the Royal Hong Kong Police Force in 1988. 'My job is to ensure this place is safe. There have been a lot of mistruths stuck out on social media about the police officers, the expatriate police officers and about me. It is quite amazing.'"</li> </ol> Here are the sources I found about the allegations about violations of government rules:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is now a keep participant who is addressing the concerns there's not yet enough discussions to call it a consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:  Wikipedia is not China. An article in The Sunday Times said Dover is "a British officer in the Hong Kong police who has become a hate figure for protesters", yet person is innocent until proven guilty. No amount of cite-bombing will mitigate the fact that Dover is well-known because he is hated. Au contraire, it rather just proves the point. FWIW, I despise him too, but I foresee that the article will remain a battleground, as it will be argued that with all the news articles about his illegal structures must mean they are valid and can be cited. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * May as well also point out the first English-language article in Cunard's list noted Dover has been a doxxing target. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the primary concern is that there will be edit wars/vandalism in the future, isn't permanent page protection or pending changes more effective or appropriate? Even if he is just a hate figure, he is a very notable hate figure in Hong Kong. The article is fairly stable. If keyboard warriors are going to lay siege, I am sure Chris Tang will be the first target, but even that article is fairly stable too. OceanHok (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * with respect, the primary concern is not that there will be vandalism or edit wars, but that much of the very tabloid nature of the current content totally violates WP:BLP, and does not reflect any genuine notability. There is no disputing Chris Tang, as popo commissioner, is notable. The Dover article is stable probably because we're a pretty civil bunch that prefers to battle out the fundamental issue (that this is an attack page) here at AfD, bearing in mind that if the property scandal stuff is removed, there's very little encyclopedic material left for a biography. BTW, it seems that Dover won't be taken to court, as predicted. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we get the WP:THREE best sources please. I and most readers do not have time to go through the 50+ mentioned. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The best sources are those I mentioned in the "Why the topic does not violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E" section. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard—probably the first and last time I will write that phrase—but it's clear that he's notable beyond a single event. Enforcement of WP:RS, with page protection if necessary, is preferable to deletion. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify. It's fairly obvious from Cunard's first batch of citations that he is notable, but an article that is two thirds negative WP:RECENTISM about something that doesn't actually appear to be that important is not a suitable article.  Get it out of mainspace until it's improved. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The BLP concerns can be resolved without moving the article to draftspace. The BLP concerns raised by Black Kite, SportingFlyer, SmokeyJoe, Ohconfucious, and myself can be resolved by completely removing the Rupert Dover section. Biographies of living persons says: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." Any editor who wants to add information about the property controversy would need to either substantially trim it to comply with BLP and WP:RECENTISM or gain consensus on the talk page for restoring the material without significant change. I have not removed the section myself as that would be a controversial action. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I support removing the Rupert Dover section, seeing how it goes, without prejudice to a later AfD. I think a *brief* mention of the multiple controversies might be OK, but it must be brief and cited to secondary sources.  There is a huge WP:COATRACK problem, but I think it could be managed by a strict adherence to WP:PSTS, specifically, no primary sources not cited in an independent secondary source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.