Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woffles Wu


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Woffles Wu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The way the article is written, its more about the case/investigation rather than the subject. The subject does not seem notable beyond the case, and I feel the case itself does not seem notable and more like NEWS Zhanzhao (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to keep, see below) per WP:BLP1E, not to mention serious BLP issues; the case dominates the article including many negative unproven allegations against the man. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say that they are not allegations now. They are facts. Woo was officially charged and was proven guilty and fined. This is not a case of one event. It is written like it is. That can be fixed. The lead section can be expanded. Controversy can be shortened. The man is clearly and highly notable. This is due to the fact that he is one of the only plastic surgeons in Singapore. He has also appeared in numerous tv shows. He is probably the most famous and prominent plastic surgeon in Singapore. He was famous long lo ng long ago. Long before this incident. So. I believe in a strong keep. And ps. This is not NEWS. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Woo was officially charged and was proven guilty and fined. That could be said in a sentence or two. But most of that section consists of hints and allegations and things that are NOT proven. Tell you what: I'll go delete everything from that section that is unproven or mere allegations, on the grounds that it violates BLP policy, and then let's see if what we have left amounts to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, there. I have trimmed the "controversy" section to reflect only what is on the record. That resolves the BLP issue in my opinion. However, evidence that he was famous for anything else is still lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit. But still. If you were a singaporean you would know how notable he is. What else is he famous for, apart from this years fiasco? A lot. He's a minor tv celebrity. He's an accomplished alumnus of the national university of Singapore. Here. I found this. If you insist on refs to further show his notabiliTy. I wonder if it would help. Thanks. [ http://movies.nytimes.com/person/490814/Woffles-Wu] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that shows that he co-produced a movie. I'll add it to the article. But we are going to need more than that to show his notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. That's not my "insistence", it's Wikipedia's. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong choice of words this time. ;P... Anyways. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay here. Another few things I found. They mention a little bout the man. Can they be considered as an RS?  And imdb. For external links. Not rs.  You can have the honour of adding those in, Melanie, and helping to save the page from deletion. I dont mind. LOL Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you can say you rescued this page. But come on. Notability, if i am right, is based on the existence of sources, not the presence of them. Is what i gave you, though, reliable and enough? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha. And this. Is that good enough? [ http://www.asiaone.com/print/Health/News/Story/A1Story20091221-187277.html]Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so far. The two annual reports don't distinguish him from hundreds of other doctors, the IMDB link just duplicates the NYT link already in the article, and the AsiaOne story simply quotes him among others. But I appreciate your efforts. Let me take a look at Google News Archive and see if I can find anything more helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Search results: the vast majority of the coverage about him is about his legal case, which was clearly an enormous deal in Singapore. But I now think this is the opposite of WP:BLP1E; instead of the person being notable because of this one case, the truth is that the (rather trivial and routine) criminal case was notable only because the person is so prominent. I did manage to find some Reliable Source items that were about him rather than the case, and I added them to the article. The new sources tend to suggest that he is notable, as Bonkers says. I am changing my opinion to Keep based on the new sources, better balance, and elimination of BLP violations in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Actually subject was already notable. Just lacking sources. But i cant blame you for not knowing his popularity in Singapore at first since you are californian to begin with. But still. Glad such issues ar resolved. Haha. And thank you for making such rather vast improvements to the article in which I created. Your effort in finding such reliable sources is noted. ;} Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the current sourcing indicates that he was is notable in Singapore as a plastic surgeon and the intense coverage about the court case is due to the interest of anything celebrity related. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Urm. Just something minor. Could you change the "was notable" to "is notable"? (He's still notable. He's still alive. LOL.) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Examples of significant coverage in reliable sources include, but are not limited to:, , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Why was this relisted? There were three "keep" !votes and no deletes except for the nominator's. Just wondering. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My sentiments too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clearly slanted towards a keep. Very clear cut. Shall ask the one who relisted it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's their call as administrator. The discussion will get closed eventually, and relisting can't hurt. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was relisted because at  that  time only  two  users (including  the creator) had commented and I  felt  that  an opportunity  should be extended for more editors to  participate. As Melanie says, relisting can't hurt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 22 August 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.