Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk (3rd Nomination)

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk

NPOV and not notable. The article is a Bio, but fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. It has been proposed before, but it seems was only retained due to notability in regards to one event in 2007. It is possible that Mathew Chuk's election is notable, but this does not warrant a bio, or one of this detail. Also some of the references don't even say anything about this individual - just student politics in WA.

I suggest deletion, or merger of WA Student Guild section to University of Western Australia Student Guild and NUS section with National Union of Students and subsequent deletion. Petrol pyro (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to overturn the Keep decision of the previous AFD. Plenty of sources, including major ones. Obviously needs to policied (like all Bio articles) for WP:BLP issues, but that's a separate matter. 23skidoo (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at the last (2nd) AfD discussion. I also congratulate the nominator on learning how to use AfD in their first few posts here! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree it has NPOV issues and contains much more commentary than the subject warrants, but neither is a valid reason for deletion. There are clearly enough reliable, independent verifiable sources to establish notability. Perhaps if the article was improved it may be picked on less often! Murtoa (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there a are a lot of 'sources' you should actually have a read of some of them - many say nothing about Mathew Chuk, and at best are only peripherally relevant to support the contentions at the text. Hence most of the article is not verifiable. There is an argument for merging in the the National Union of Students page, as the only verifiable/notable information is that Mathew Chuk was elected to NUS - his actions at UWA are no more notable (in the wiki sence) than many other student politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.190.180 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, there are a few sources that don't mention Chuk, but this points more to a decent re-write of the article to remove irrelevant content. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. I still think he probably satisfies notability requirements, but maybe a merge into NUS could also be appropriate. Murtoa (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few of the reliable mainstream sources (i.e. not campus newspaper or newsletter) mention him except peripherally and in passing, in one case giving him a short quotation with respect to a general human interest article on many young political figures. The positions he's held do not merit WP:POLITICIAN levels of notability, and his news mentions seem to stem from WP:BLP1E. He may be a promising student politician, but, egad, he's a student politician. RayAYang (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in terms of third-party sources, and the significance of his election. Note that since many predecessors in his position have become national MPs or Ministers, the fact that a non-ALP student politician uniquely won this election is very significant.Sumthingweird (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil. JRG (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.