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. Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Cheong[edit]

Bernard Cheong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the links and references appear to have in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/fashion/wild-about-watches.html is a New York Times feature about the specific person, which is a pretty good indication that the person is notable, and covered in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of quotes, this is clearly based on a non-adversarial interview and thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you asserting that only adversarial interviews used for extensive articles in The New York Times actually count as articles? Interesting thought, that. I can not find any other discussions on Wikipedia saying that, alas. Collect (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softball interviews that are effectively promotional are questionable sources at best.--Rpclod (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not everyone mentioned in a NY Times article is notable. Despite the assertion that the subject is "better known as an active party animal among high society circles," there are not enough significant references to support WP:ANYBIO notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Far more than a mere "mention" in fact. One feature article specifically about him, and four more articles quoting him. Also cited in Forbes Magazine, and in a number of trade publications. Collect (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is too promotional, but there is enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Tabloid journalism from the NYT is still tabloid journalism, and we do not base articles on Tabloid journalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no, the New York Times is never discounted for purposes of notability. We do not count interviews as they are primary, but this was enough of a feature in arguably the most reliable print journalistic source in the world that even I can't argue for deletion based on interview status. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Collect. I think the Times story counts as substantial coverage that justifies the article. There is a lot of room for improvement, but the article is a good start and should not be deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently important in the world of Horology, and ...the New york Times article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (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.