Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yam Ah Mee


 * 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   merge to Singaporean general election, 2011. The BLP1E argument does not appear to have been substantially rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yam Ah Mee

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete: How is he notable? or even encyclopedic?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Singaporean general election, 2011: Fails WP:BLP1E. He was just doing his job during the election and not particularly spectacular at it. He is only getting attention because of his voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B3virq3b (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by nominator and B3virq3b. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: looking at the article in its current form, and the actual career of Mr Yam prior to his stint as the RO, I won't say this is an open-and-shut. He was a high-flying civil servant who served in various important capacities. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: High-flying civil servant does not equate to worthiness of having an article. That can be said for dozens of other civil servants globally.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can only !vote once. As you already expressed a delete position in your nomination, I've changed your second "Delete" here to a "Comment". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but do not merge. Subject appears to have been received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, so just about meets WP:GNG. However, merging this to the election article would be a Bad Idea™ as undue coverage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with this. Yes, he did make it onto local media one or two days after the elections for being an overnight internet sensation, but that's it. I would not call that "significant coverage" enough to warrant a standalone biographical article. — b3virq3b (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. - ryan  d  22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep nominators presuppose notability established by RO role per se and ignore other grounds supporting notability. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I was scolded for commenting twice and you can comment twice.


 *  Delete Comment: Fame through voice is not notability.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He "commented" once and !voted to "keep" once. You, on the other hand, have !voted to "delete" four times now (although two of them have been removed). There is nothing wrong with adding comments and then separately !voting. To !vote multiple times otherwise is disruptive and against policy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC
 * That illogical and biased.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - someone reviewing the debate might not notice that the same person entered multiple recommendations. If they see 5 Deletes and 2 Keeps, they might think it a landslide - but it's not if 4 of those Deletes are from the same person. It is a courtesy to other editors, especially since you've already been asked to stop due to the confusion. Comment all you like, but only !vote once. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, as per above.-- T V B dxiang (Talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Paul 1953 (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - Yam would seem to be a borderline notable person, but he "shot to fame" based on one recent event (reading returns for the 2011 elections), and his further "fame" is from viral videos and Facebook-type things. All this seems to indicate a GNG issue ("Notability is not temporary"), and a strong correspondence with BLP1E.  At present, I think he should get a paragraph in the election article as a notable sidebar and that's all (to avoid undue weight, as mentioned above), with reconsideration to be split out as a separate article if he continues to be notable in the future as a person in his own right. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Our "one voice wonder" Mr Yam just had yet another article just about him in The Straits Times no less . People voting here need to understand the context of why this article exists, and one of them is the fact that his sudden fame was completely unexpected and unprecedented in local electoral history. The phenomena of this social reaction here is itself worth documenting because it is encyclopaedic, and the best place to document this in more detail is obviously in an article about the said subject.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * possibly unnecessary comment: The above is a very dangerous argument to make, as it directly affects the integrity of the encyclopedia. The argument seems to indicate that WP should be in the forefront of reporting events, looking at them subjectively as they happen, rather than looking at material objectively.  That is very much against policy, and the notion should not even be entertained. MSJapan (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Singaporean general election, 2011 - at the moment it appears to me that this is BLP1E. It can received a minor mention at the election article, and if further coverage for other events occurs, an article could be re-created  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:12, 24 May 2011 (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.