Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai Ho


 * 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 of the debate was Delete, by a vote of 14d-4k (78%), with votes by anonymous IPs discounted on both sides.--Scimitar parley 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sai Ho

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Appears to be vanity. Delete. Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I am from melbourne and have seen a number of Sai Ho's plays. Just because you can't find him on google doesn't mean that he isn't a worthy melbourne artist. . --202.158.212.34 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * many worthy artists are also non-notable. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 01:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be some theatre related figure. See here. -- WB 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Only the first two links in the google result that are posted are about Sai Ho. They are copies of each other - one a post in a messageboard and other a mailing list - and tells the readers to contact Sai Ho for auditions. These google results are in no way any indications of notability. Tintin 04:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also from Melbourne, and attended Monash University. It does appear to be a vanity piece, considering the same author appears to think he's worth including in a Monash University alumnus list from which he claims to have refused to accept a degree from. Besides, how can you claim to be avant garde when the very name of your work is derivative? Delete (unsigend comment from ISP User: 203.58.120.11)

I would suggest that the above comments come from someone who knows Sai and doesn't like him for some reason. He refuses to sign --202.158.212.34 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you can't be avant garde if the name of your piece is derivative. That is utter twadle. The avant garde's function is to discard earlier forms. How better to do this than to parody them??? --202.158.212.34 04:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You can be avante garde with a derivative title sure. You can also be avante garde and non-notable after having published one play (was it in fact published or did he only write it?) &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 01:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. nn. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To expand on my reasons for voting delete: this is an encyclopedia, not a place where up and coming young artists, writes, painters, play-writes will be published after getting one work onto a small scene where it impresses a handful of first-hand aquintances and the people in their immediate community.  If Sai is in fact the next Van Gogh or Samuel Beckett, then he will make his way here eventually, but does not belong here now.  THis is nothing against Sai Ho or his work, but he fails at this point to meet the criteria for notability as a playwrite to warrant inclusion here.  Once his work has drawn enough attention that articles, books, etc are made about his life and work, then it would be reasonable for him to have an article here.  Having produced one play that has drawn recent attention in the theatre community in in Melbourne area is justnot enough.  My first article submitted to WP was on a good friend who was a philosopher, writer, incredible story teller.  I wrote it not long after he died.  He was a great guy, but the article was deleted.  This article reminds me of that one.  Sorry but he just does not meet the criteria for notability. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the claims put in place by the author are somewhat unsubstantiated and appear nothing more than ego padding. You aren't supporting your argument by not addressing the point - 'avant garde' seems like a throwaway line especially since the summary seems rather formulaic. Admittedly the comment was flip, but I hardly think parody or misspelling 'twaddle' an avant garde artist make.

You are assuming that I am Sai Ho. I simply helped create the Sai page. Actually, as far as I know, he has no idea that the page about him exists. --202.158.212.34 05:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think that Sai Ho's inclusion in Monash Alumni is particularly relevant to this page being a vanity article. I am a keen patron of the Melbourne underground theatre scene and he is a very active and well regarded theatre-maker. The very nature of an avant garde arts scene is not one of mass popular appeal, and it is absurd to delete this article because Sai Ho is not famous in the wider "Hollywood" sense of the word. Arguing about the spelling of words is also irrelevant to the claim that Sai Ho is not avant garde. The title "Clockwork Blue" is not derivative; it is using a literary technique called pastiche to draw upon other works, using them to create a "mish-mash" of new characters and scenes. It is an important element of postmodern literature, as it acknowledges the inescapalbe mass of discourse to which any new text is simply added. (211.28.129.240 05:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

It appears that many of the above comments are based upon the sands of misperception. No, I do not believe that the artist in question wrote the article about himself. I have met Mr Ho on a number of occassions at underground events (in Melbourne) over the past few years. He shuns publicity and the media -- information concerning his work is often attributed to aliases, which means that those who search for his name on the internet will be largely unsuccessful -- and, from my knowledge of his work, it would be beneath his artistic integrity to write such a piece about himself -- take the fact that he refused to graduate as evidence of this. I would strongly argue that this piece is entirely unauthorised, and hence should be acquitted of the charge of "vanity".
 * Keep

However, even if the writers of the previous comments deny this to be the truth (for how much does truth weigh when written on a computer screen?), and that, in some way, the artist was complicit in the article's writing (or, for that matter, any of the comments on this page, including the "twadle/twaddle" comment above), the article's value should still be apparent. If it were not for fora such as this, admittedly obscure, yet still culturally important works in the unwritten media will be lost for good.

Hence, I do not believe that this article should be deleted. But the complaints levelled at the article should not go unheeded. From my knowledge of the artist's work, the article is far from completion. I hence urge those unnamed forces at work behind it to finish their task, but to do so in a sanguine manner that puts forward the weaknesses in the artist's work as well, in the true spirit of the democratic quest for knowledge. We should accept that initial enthusiasm may later require adjustment and clarification, but it does not mean that we should remove its work for good.--130.194.13.102 05:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable. pfctdayelise 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  06:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -This guy is notable, though the article needs to be more neutral. Reyk 06:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How is he notable? He wrote one play like one year ago.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely non-notable (from a Melburnian). Ambi 10:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, I feel that I need to write again in response to new comments posted. I can't take seriously the claims from Melbourne residents that Sai Ho is not notable as an artist simply because they haven't heard of him. He is an underground artist, not a game-show host. It is patently absurd for people who seemingly have no intimate connection with the fringe theatre and arts scene in Melbourne to claim that they know who is noteworthy simply because they live there. It's also common knowledge that avant gardists hardly achieve fame as their work is not considered to be popular and is socially challenging. As the arts scene stands in Australia, it is very rare for any artist to become even remotely famous, let alone those who produce work outside of social acceptance. You can't judge Sai Ho against big budget musical theatre productions and touring companies, because in reality they play very different roles within the wider umbrella of the Melbourne arts scene. Anybody with any credibility in their knowledge of art in this country is aware of this, and it would be a disgrace to Wikipedia to delete this article simply because Sai Ho does not appear in "TV Week". This is the sort of attitude that almost resulted in the works of Vincent van Gogh being lost to history- he could barely give away a painting, let alone become famous in his lifetime. I am not saying that Sai Ho is the next Vincent van Gogh, just that one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it allows for obscure yet highly respected social contributors to be recorded. (211.28.129.240 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Van Gogh was not lost to history. Nor was he discovered by an encyclopedia.  Sai Ho's work, if it is as importnat as you all suggest, will then get written about and noted elsewhere, in the alternative press perhaps only for the time being.  Having published one play one year ago, dropped out of college, and acted in some community theatre does not a super-star make, even if he is brilliant beyond comprehension.  Wait until he has garnered some acclaim and then submit the articel, with some references to back it up (maybe a list of newspaper articles about his work) rather than references to the theater where his play was put on. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as nn or too secret, take your pick. How can he be highly respected if he's obscure to the point that no one's heard of him?  When he pulls a van Gogh and becomes famous after his death, we'll add him.  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete vanity page. Look, I'm sure he's a very fine fringe artist, but if nobody's heard of him, he isn't notable.  The only mentions of his 'A Clockwork Blue' I can find on Google are the audition advertisements for a single production to be given in a "student theatre space".  No critical references, no reviews, no nothing.  In Britain, even student theatre gets reviewed.  Maybe Australia really is a philistine country where everything non-mainstream is ignored, but my Australian acquaintances have never given me that impression. Haeleth 14:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, no original research thanks. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 15:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to the WP criteria for biographies, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" are merited inclusion. It is my honest belief that Sai Ho fits this description, and that his notability falls under the category of "cult following" also in the WP guidelines for biographies. It is a misinterpretation of my previous comment to say that nobody has heard of Sai Ho, he is a very respected man. And, in response to Haleth, there is some truth in describing Australia as "a philistine country where everything non-mainstream is ignored", or at least in reference to the arts. Although widely respect and posessing a cult following, many of this country's great artists, such as Sai Ho, do not recieve widespread popular media exposure. Also, the article is as yet incomplete, and there are other works to be added, and I do admit that the page requires some editing. I give my word that this is not a vanity piece! (211.28.129.240 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * but non-noatble. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A search of the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre which includes articles from News Limited, Australias' biggest newspaper chain through my Library's Reference Centre received one hit related to flood victims. A search of Macquarie.Net which includes Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Australian Associated Press came up with no hits at all. Melbourne Wikipedians have never heard of him nor have I as an Australian. This guy is totally unverifiable and if he exists is very non-notable . Capitalistroadster 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete A Google search for "Sai Ho" play came up with 296 English results none of which related to him see.
 * Delete as non-notable. Sai Ho's acheivements do not appear to be WP:V as far as I can tell. Based on the text of the article I see a guy who's done student theater and wrote a play.  There is no verifiable information this play was ever performed anywhere.  I wish Sai Ho luck in his endevors, but right now I don't see anything to set him apart from 1000 other struggling artists that have not yet acheived notability.--Isotope23 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment In my google search for Sai Ho, I found a media release for Clockwork Blue, confirming that it was performed at Chapel off Chapel , a prestigous and well-known venue in Melbourne seemingly of such importance that it features in newspaper articles about internal theatre politics . News Limited produces mainly tabloids which steer away from any arts coverage except musical theatre. (Crazyandrew 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
 * maybe Sai Ho could be mentioned in an article on Chapel off Chapel among however many other talented up and comers in his community are writing plays. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ</b> 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. While I can find a reference through Australian Google to the play being performed in August 2004, the results do not lead me to believe that Sai Ho should be included in wikipedia.  I note that the comment by Crazyandrew is his first edit under this user ID.--User:AYArktos |  Talk 19:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment, Please note that I am not attempting to sockpuppet this discussion, I have merely decided to sign up for a user ID after another member sent me a message inviting me to do so. I have previously posted on this discussion and have contributed to the article (IP: 211.28.129.240), and I do not claim to be a new user! Apologies if this has caused any confusion! As an aside, I am adding the information regarding venue in my previous post (confirming that Sai Ho is not merely a student performer) to the actual article. I also think that there have been some important points made here and I wish to improve the article, so I will try to add more information and links in the coming days.(Crazyandrew 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
 * The notability of the venue where his work was produced does not really rule him in as a notable figure. It might mean that he is talented and has a bright future, yet uncertain.  WP is not a crystal ball. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue; font-size:smaller;">ταλκ</b> 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that the links that i have added to the 'Sai Ho' page have persuaded those that have called the page non-neutral, vanity, and no original research.... --Mjspe1 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete good luck into the future, may your Apogees be many and grand. Based partially on google: "Clockword Blue" Sai (9 unique) &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 20:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. --JJay 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.mikka (t) 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know about those guys above who say they 'know sai' but i play a small part in the Melbourne theatre seen and Sai is well respected and I don't think this page is vanity as a few comments have suggested. --Mjspe1 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If people care to look. I have added a number of links to reviews of plays that Sai has been involved in. Thanks. --Mjspe1 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best, a minor part of Melbourne's theatre scene, so not up to having an article. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Dottore So 13:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not yet encyclopaedic. I wish him the best of luck, however, in furthering his career to the point where we would want an article about him.  Oh, and Gaff, if you could stop responding to those who disagree with you with a "non-notable", that'd be great. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:51, 25 October 2005 (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.