Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Kim Peng Clarence


 * 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. ~ Arjun  03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tan Kim Peng Clarence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Army officer. Fails to establish notability. mandel 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Aarontay 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. He seemed like a nice guy. Did his job. Got promoted. ... --MRoberts &lt;&gt; 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Pioneer who helped build up an army, --Vsion 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The onus, I think, is on the article writer to show his notability. Mandel 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any of the relevant non-English Wikipedias have an article on the guy? If so, they might have some good sources, and if not, that might reinforce the contention of non-notability. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only found in English Wikipedia. Mandel 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about a man who was instrumental in building up an elite military unit. Given the sensitive topic nature, and contemporary security situation we have now, it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this.--Huaiwei 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and the article explains why. I would most appreciate if the nominator and those who vote delete at least explain why he is not notable based on the article content. I was the original author by the way.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Article does not show how he was instrumental in 'building up an elite military unit'. Four of those voted have already indicated that, from their reading of the article. The onus is now on the article writer, not the nominator/voters. We obviously can't explain why, not knowing the guy. Based on the article, I only see a fairly high-ranked officer regularly promoted. Mandel 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we on the same page? It's right there :"1967, he was tasked to begin recruiting eligible candidates for the new Singapore Armed Forces Regular Battalion, the precursor of the 1st Commando Battalion"... CO from 1971 to 1978. Your misrepresentation of the article and my comment is rather strange. --Vsion 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Huaiwei, not you, Vsion. Recruitment of soldiers is neither surprising nor by itself notable. In fact, every battalion has to do some recruitment, or they would have zero man. I do not represent or misrepresent the article; the article is open for perusal. I have not edited it in any way. Mandel 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the missing of important fact in your comment is appalling. "every battalion has to do some recruitment", well true, but you forget to mention that the battalion (and in fact the whole army) didn't exist at the time. --Vsion 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making points with no meaning. I said every battalion; new or not makes no difference. Please stop the ad hominem attacks and stick to the article.  This govt site states 1969 was the year the Singapore Commando battalion precursor unit was formed. By then this officer was already posted elsewhere. The article said he was tasked to recruit battalion members, it does not show us how he 'built up' the Commandoes - or that he was doing something extra or special beyond his job.  If you have constructive comments to make, do; otherwise, please stop attacking someone just for posting an AfD. Mandel 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on your comments, nothing personal, take it easy. He was the CO from 71 to 78, Commandant 81 to 88, he was thus involving in recruiting, training, and establishing the doctrine of the formation. Clearly, he is a founding pioneer. I think there is some misunderstanding over the word "recruit", it does not mean handing out application forms and conducting desk interviews. --Vsion 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to comprehend your arguments on his non-notability, a man who was largely responsible for helping to setup an elite military formation for an entire country. A man who was one of the first two Commando-trained soldiers in the country. A man who came up with the first training programme for the Commando formation. If being the first man to be trained to be an elite soldier isnt "doing something extra or special beyond his job" (at least during his time), then just how do you justify articles like Bill Gates, when all he did as a Computer programme company founder is to, well, sell computer software?--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you should get offended by "ad hominem attacks" when you are clearly turning this into a personal affair by telling someone off for voicing out when he has every liberty to.--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Telling someone off'? I was asked by a fellow Wikipedian Huaiwei for my opinion and I merely gave it. As nominator I explain myself. I was telling off someone for ad hominem attacks, which disrupts VfD. A valid point is never retorted.  The discussion topic revolves around the article subject, not the nominator. Are you alleging ad hominem attacks are all right?
 * I have no agenda against Tan Kim Peng Clarence. I do not know him.  Nor do any of the three who voted delete, I believe. Mandel 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * C'mon, your comments were projecting Tan as merely a high ranking officer, or HR recruiter. It's ok to make mistake, that's fine, but I'm entitled to point out the problem with your comments and clarify the facts. Please don't cry victim of ad hominem because of that. --Vsion 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are army officers generally notable? This is open for discusion. There is no directive on this.  Don't crucify me for saying no. Mandel 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Continually saying 'you', 'your comments' is ad honinem. I think it does not matter who says it as long as it makes sense.  I am merely defending myself.  If one would please, stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good that this is on record, that you, erhm ... (pardon me) someone consider the "continuous" use of 'you', 'your comments' as "ad honinem". It is indeed illuminating. Btw, why are we (I hope "we" is ok) using Latin, this is an english wikipedia.--Vsion 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we know what you are doing. The question is if no one else can come into the picture and make comments on your responses to my queries? We arent accusing you of having "something" against the article in question. I do have, however, an issue over whether you have something against the editor(s) in question.--Huaiwei 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have nothing against you Huaiwei. We have never been in a dispute before.  Pls assume good faith.  I don't know any other editor of the article.  Let's shake and allow discussion to proceed genially. Mandel 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

Metacomment: I previously closed this debate as "delete" on grounds of lacking reliable sources, esp based on Huaiwei's comment ''it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this''. But I'm willing to entertain more input on the issue of sources so I'm re-opening debate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z 


 * I think redirect/merge to Singapore Armed Forces Commando Formation is the way to go here: the subject has borderline notability, and only due to association with one particular organization -- classic merge scenario. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z 
 * As nominator, I agree. I think my main purpose for throwing this out is to get some directives on army personnel. At present Wikipedia is pretty blurry over their inclusion/deletion. I'm not so concerned about this one particular officer.  As a LTC, he is right smacked in the middle of the Singapore officer hierarchy - though I'm less concerned about rank than with genuine contributions. Mandel 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe I've missed something, but I am curious as to how these editors know about the man if there are no publications - word of mouth and reputation? Can the book reference in the article be used to cite any of these claims? Pomte 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Does the book cited have an ISBN number, or publisher information, or a copyright holder? The subtitle gets zero non-wiki GHits. The title has 154, and none of them seem to be about the book.  cab 06:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - my neighbor's friend's uncle totally recruited some people for this army this once. This makes him important and notable! Source: Generic Titleword: The Life and Times of This One Dude (sorry no ISBN) --Action Jackson IV 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure. I believe there are plenty of recruiters out there. The question is if your neighbor's friend's uncle Charles Beckwith or David Stirling?--Huaiwei 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for allowing more air time on the above matter.
 * I believe my statement has caused some misunderstanding there. I was actually refering to the lack of a high number of courses, but not on the non-existance of any source. The book in question was published by the Singapore Armed Forces in 1995, and available from the National Library, Singapore/SAFTI library. I am not sure if this link will work, but here is the book's entry on its catalogue . The book was a special commemorative volume produced to mark the formation's 35th anniversary, and was previously not readily available for public viewing until the tie-up between the military and national libraries. Such is the difficulty of obtaining information on otherwise "classified" information, and the difficulty in looking for sources as I earlier alluded to. Hence, it is not always feasible to use google searches to establish notability on certain topics.--Huaiwei 07:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per some of the points mentioned above. The article at least claims notability. And he is a Lieutenant Colonel, which is not super high up the ranks it is still nothing to sneeze at! That is staff level. Hmmm... arguably all staff level officers are notable? Heh, perhaps not. But still, it does make it more likely. Mathmo Talk 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Assuming good faith there is a reference given, but there should be two sources to meet the "multiple" criterion. I think that it should be kept and tagged for more sources which validate notability, which comes from creating the commando group.  --Kevin Murray 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There appears to be only one book describing his work, and that is not suficcient to meet the requirement of multiple independent and relaible sources. He is mentioned in the article on the commando forse, and perhaps that mention could be expanded to a paragraph. Lt. Col. in a small military organization is not inherently notable. Doing your job well, even in the military, does not bypass other requirements for demonstrating that a person has notability per WP:N. Inkpaduta 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As per, there was actually a second source found on the web at . As I mentioned earlier, there is little literature on elite military forces in Singapore for obvious security reasons, and hence I do not feel quantity of sources should be used as a primary criterion for deletion.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge This article has merit in that it describes someone important to the Singapore Army, but he did not have much worldly recognition, beyond those who had to study his history for their mandatory service in the Singapore armed services. The US military trains a lot of personnel from other nations, to a variety of degrees; his training would have been sponsored as part of a larger military training program to act as a general counter-point to ongoing cold-war fears at the time. In fact, I am not clear what active duties he participated in. Other military pioneers were usually involved in some active duty.--Shakujo 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is he probably isn't notable either in Singapore. Aarontay 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Singapore does not have a culture of glorifying personalities, and that includes military personnel in general.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you basically agree he is not notable even in Singapore? Okay. Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the average Singapore Joe/Jane doesn't know that many people outside his or her select band of notables. A person well known to one Singaporean may not be well known to another.  You are talking about some who have problems remembering their MPs, the Minister for Environment, the CoA etc, let alone a LTC for a Battalion who seldom hog the news.  Ironically, if he murdered or was killed, he'll be remembered.  We know Huang Na and Mr TT Durai.  Just a general observation. I'm saying notability in Singapore is a very vague notion.  No one agrees exactly who is important, other than our PM.  Mandel 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable is a very vague notation anywhere. But there are certainity degrees of it. This fellow is definitely on the very low side even among active military soldiers. I wonder how notable he is if he doesn't even appear in an search of the ST archives for the last 50 years. If I didn't know better, I would have thought your coment about the Average Singapore Joe is meant to be insulting to the rest of us. Anyway I think the fact that the sources aren't independent coupled with the lack of real world notability (even taking into account how ignorant people who aren't wikipedia editors are :) ), makes me wonder why anyone would support keeping this article. Excuses about military secrets can only go so far. Otherwise people will start creating articles about Joe X that nobody can verify and use the same execuse. .Aarontay 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or back up the article with independent sources. I don't believe the one cited is enough. If I saw better sourcing, I'd switch to "Keep". Noroton 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems to be the best compromise available. Delete, I just looked at the Singapore military leaders category, it's pretty amazing to see that this Clarance fellow is listed, when There are probably more relevant leaders than him. Seems a bit strange to list one LTC however accomplished, when most of the past Chief of armies etc are not! To add, I'm Singaporean (though I don't edit the singapore sections at all), to be honest I have not heard of this person. Not that this means the average Singaporean has never heard of him of course. Just one data point. Aarontay 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for Lim Kim Choon and Ng Yat Chung (both of which are stubs) all other entries listed in that category are much more known for their non-military careers. As a Singaporean, I thought you would have noticed this easily.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point! Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems to meet WP:V, but there don't appear to be any mentions in sources independent of the Singapore Armed Forces (One was a Ministry of Defence webpage, and the other was a book published by the Singapore Armed Forces), so notability isn't too clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 February 2007
 * Keep. He is one of eight in Category:Singaporean military leaders ; he may be the least notable amongst them, but he is more notable than all of the other military leaders that do not have articles. John Vandenberg 06:13, 17 February 2007 (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.