Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thio Shen Yi


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thio Shen Yi

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

Lawyer BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law,  and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the article and its references aren't great in the current state, but the subject does have some notability. We ignore the family connections as no inherited notability there. On his own merit, the subject is a high-profile lawyer in Singapore who has held multiple important posts, though none of which qualify for automatic inclusion along the lines of WP:JUDGE. Appearances in local newspapers and other news sources are numerous; examples include
 * 1) him writing as a contributor, or being quoted as a legal expert in an article about some other subject (irrelevant for notability)
 * 2) interview of him and his wife, touching on their law firm and business philosophy
 * 3a) him being the lawyer in large, newsworthy cases such as  (not SIGCOV about him, but lends support for his public profile)
 * 3b) named as one of the victims of a nickel trading scam in multiple reports (passing mentions, but again lends support as being "famous enough")
 * 4) speaking in the capacity of LawSoc president (and before that, vice-president) on matters related to the legal profession, e.g. (not about him). ❌
 * 5) for articles specifically about the subject, I found one about him and his plans for LawSoc after he was elected as president, and retrospectives just before he stepped down.
 * 6) there is coverage related to his call for reform in the wake of an incident where a minor committed suicide after being taken in for questioning by police. This was covered in news, drew a ministerial response in parliament, and there was more follow-up coverage in response to that. This event was also recapped in the retrospectives mentioned earlier. The overarching topic in all this is the wider controversy from the incident, but Thio's involvement in making a public intervention using his position as LawSoc president received dedicated individual coverage and formed a key part of the broader discussion. Furthermore, this was an issue that he had been advocating even before the incident occurred. Keeping in mind the state of media censorship in Singapore (see 1, 2) which may bias the tone and volume of coverage in major local outlets as criticism of the government is involved, I'd consider the coverage that we do have to be already remarkable.
 * 7) also in "not covered by major outlets due to political aspects", where we may have to consider accepting some sources that normally might not quite meet WP:RS to compensate (see bottom comments in WP:RSN discussion): we have a smaller "indy" news outlet giving secondary coverage about political commentary and criticism of the ruling party published by Thio.
 * Overall, I'd classify this as a weak keep under GNG with some help from extenuating factors. If this article didn't exist, I would not have enthusiastically created it. On the other hand, with benefit of local context, this is not the cut and dried delete that it might otherwise appear to be. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Evaluation of these sources would help this discussion progress. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep Agree with the source explanations above, I'd say it passes. They aren't the best ok for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per source explanation. BBSTOP (talk) 05:29, 8 August 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.