Trichome

thcscience_admin
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 delete and redirect to Andrew Tan. Ultimately I find myself persuaded by the arguments that the sources are not reliable/independent, primarily by DGG as well as Extraordinary Writ's switch to delete. To prevent recreation, I will redirect to Andrew Tan and protect (rather than a straight SALT). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Tan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kevin L. Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covert UPE article on a Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a major GNG fail. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources which were majorly just press releases. Even in the sources used in the article, they predominantly only discuss his father stepping down for him to be the next CEO. Furthermore notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I rewrote the article with completely new content after finding copyright violations in the existing text.

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, clearly UPE article, non notable businessman CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG. The coverage is certainly substantial, and it appears to come from leading national newspapers. While being the child of a notable person certainly does not make one notable, it also doesn't prevent one from being notable if there's coverage in reliable sources. Paid editing, etc. can be dealt with via the appropriate processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC) !vote changed; see below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more vanity spam, no independent notability from the company and what littel coverage there is of him is akin to gossip columns. YODADICAE👽 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject was extensively covered in the reputable major Philippine newspapers The Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine edition of Esquire. There is substantial biographical coverage about him, which I included in my complete rewrite of the article. Kevin Tan passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    The coverage spans nearly a decade: 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Extraordinary Writ is correct in noting that Kevin L. Tan's association with his notable father and with Alliance Global do not prevent him from becoming notable when there are multiple articles from reputable national newspapers written about his early life, business career, and personal life.

    The original creator may be an undisclosed paid editor and sockpuppet (I created a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd). But that should have no effect on this article. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject, and I completely rewrote the article without using any of the prior content because it contained copyright violations. No content from the creator, who is a single-purpose account, remains.

    Pinging Spiderone (talk · contribs), who participated in this AfD and who wrote in the previous AfD, "Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him". I am not a banned sock, and I wrote an article about him because I think he is notable. Would you take review the rewritten article and the sources? Thanks,

    Cunard (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment — @Cunard, please start by learning to WP:SIGN properly. honestly none of the sources you provided are cogent nor do they satisfy WP:RS. I suggest you brush up your grasp on both what counts as RS and also our notability criteria for inclusion before rushing to make a comment in an AFD, im going to be frank with you because I’m afraid all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive and yes I do believe a COI exits between yourself and the subject of our discussion. Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh good grief. Cunard? A well-regarded editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs? I respect your work combating UPE/spam, Celestina, but accusing Cunard of a COI is a bridge too far. I probably lean deletionist, but I recognize that having numerous articles in leading national newspapers is more than adequate to establish notability. I would urge you to take a closer look at the details here: they aren't what they seem to be at first glance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs).

          Celestina007, the sources I provided are all from reputable publications and are strong reliable sources. I do not understand your comment about signing properly as I have signed all my comments in this AfD properly. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject and disagree that "all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive". AfD is not the proper venue to discuss conduct issues. If you have a conduct complaint against me regarding COI or disruptive AfD contributions, please report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the community to review and sanction me if appropriate. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • You said to Cunard please start by learning to WP:SIGN and accusing Cunard of a COI! What the hell ugh ? He is a highly respected editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs. I suggest you please start by learning who Cunard is and then go on!! LOL What a big joke? 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references by Cunard. So that WP:BASIC is passed. Btw, for other, see WP:IDONTLIKE! Why people are using AfD as a weapon ? VocalIndia (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — @VocalIndia, please let’s be mature and tone down the sarcasm. Now, if you claim the article has been improved then please point me to three reliable sources that discuss the “Businessman” with in-depth significant coverage. Furthermore please you are also welcome to read WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 2 3 is good enough for me. Perhaps he shouldn't be notable, but that's not our call. Reliable sources have seen fit to discuss him in detail, so he's notable, full stop. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment — Not quite, the first source you used has all the tale marks of a covert sponsored piece and only discusses the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father as the next ceo. The second source is basically an extended announcement that yet again discusses the subject of our discussion predominantly within the confines of him becoming the next ceo of his fathers organization which leads us to the third and last source you provided which states that the piece is an “advertisement” in the body of the article and furthermore appears to be an interview with the subject of our discussion which makes It immaterial as the source isn’t independent of the subject and GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You are welcome to go through WP:RS in your spare time. Furthermore notability is earned by merit and not my proximity to a notable entity or individual. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we're just going around in circles here, but I feel obligated to offer a few brief responses. 1) Nikkei Asian Review is not a purveyor of covert paid pieces: it is instead considered a reliable source for Asian financial news. 2) The third source nowhere says that it is an advertisement; I'm somewhat mystified at how you reached that conclusion. 3) Frankly, it's irrelevant that these pieces only discuss "the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father". The point is that they discuss him, and it's immaterial why. In any event, the sources presented by Cunard provide a wide variety of unrelated coverage, including of his wedding and his other business endeavors. 4) The third source contains analysis by an independent journalist; the fact that an interview is included is irrelevant. 5) Suggesting that editors haven't gone through WP:RS is incivil, to say the least. 6) Notability is not "earned by merit": it is earned by coverage in reliable sources. If sources cover him (as they clearly do), we are not qualified to opine on a perceived lack of "merit". This is, of course, what WP:IDONTLIKEIT was written for. See, e.g., the perspectives offered in this AfD. In sum, I don't see this as a close call, and I'm no inclusionist. I hope other editors will take a close look at the sources and the guidelines in assessing this AfD, for initial impressions can be deceiving. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Semantics! notability is earned by “merit” and by “merit” I mean, the subject of the article satisfies our general notability criteria for inclusion or the relative SNG. You have made some inaccuracies in your analysis above, whilst I might not get into all, I’d address a few. You implied that multiple sources only discussing one aspect of the individual is irrelevant but WP:1E invalidates that. You implied that an interview can count towards notability, again, not quite, WP:GNG expressly states for it to be satisfied the source should be independent of the subject. Finally, You have referenced WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I’m not sure why, thus far my arguments have been solely policy based I’m unsure how that applies here. Finally, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same, every now and again reliable sources publish unreliable piece(s) and discernment is left for us.Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as written prevents any possible claim of WP:BLP1E; as this essay cogently explains, any coverage of more than one event is sufficient to prevent invocation of BLP1E. In this case, there's far more than that: there's information about all sorts of additional biographical events, including previous work, his wedding, and his post-2018 actions. I could perhaps go either way on the interview, but, as this essay notes, interviews that contain the interviewer's "own thoughts" are indeed secondary. You've provided no evidence that the first source was paid for; the fact that it was written by a paid employee of a reliable news outlet would tend to dispel any such suggestion. And even if you don't like the three sources I've selected, there's a large reserve of additional stories in reliable press outlets above that I haven't even discussed. While I appreciate your zeal, I'd respectfully suggest that it would be better directed at real spam, not good-faith articles by good-faith contributors citing hosts of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — As is customary, at this juncture let us allow the AFD play out. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I read most of the coverage as a combination of fake interviews, covert influenced journalism, and non-critical adulation. There is no news source in the world that does not publish articles written or instigated by PR--the very job of a good press agent is to find what people will consider reliable sources to put their material in. This isn't exactly paid journalism, but it has the same effect. 15 years ago I was much less able to detect the more a sophisticated versions of it, but experience at WP has provided a thorough education. I've been opposed to Cunard on many similar AfDs, and sometimes, I am indeed convinced, when that happens, I admit it. But often at least some of the sources are not quite as significant or free from influence as they at first appear, and I think this will prove to be the case here. What I'm skeptical about is not that an article is impossible, but that an article based on the sources cited above and used in the present revision of the article [1] will not be NPOV. It will take a while for me to check them all, but looking at one quotation in the present version " According to The Manila Times, Tan's father 'trained him with love and by whip and example, as he rose up the ranks from a mere sales agent to the top executive posts across the family's diverse investments". I do not see how this style of writing can possibly be a reliable source. Similarly, sourced to the Philippine Star "When his father announced the appointment, he was a guest at a wedding being held in another country. He began getting numerous text messages complimenting him on the promotion. Despite having been trained to become the conglomerate's CEO and having collaborated with his father beginning when he was a 21-year-old, he did not know his father would appoint him at that moment" This statement about his private knowledge can have come only from him, and for a news source to report it as fact without qualification is not reliable journalism. And apparently these are the sources that are considered best! I'll look at the others tomorrow. I am not saying that Cunard could not write an NPOV article, for I know he can, but I am saying that this version is not a example of one.
As for the question of objective notability , the formal rule is to go by the sources and that usually works. It does not work quite so well when all the sources are influenced by PR, or when thee is repeated attempts to write a promotional article. A non-promotional article can only be written where there is something actually objective to write about. In that sense, the GNG guideline is only a failable shortcut. NOT TABLOID remains policy. A subject about which only such an article is possible is not suitable or an encyclopedia . Celestina's view of notability is in such cases a much more reliable approach; but of course I think that, for that is the view I have followed and advocated myself for many years in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting that a WP:ATD exists via a merge/redirect to Alliance Global or Andrew Tan. Not voting on if the article should be kept or not as I'm not sure of the independence of the sources, the sources given are large national newspapers which normally would be an easy WP:GNG pass, but I do agree with some concerns other editors have given regarding the RS. Probably the best bet for this is to find some sources that are based outside of the Philippines, as his family's wealth can make a lot of influence to even the best sources. Jumpytoo Talk 06:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Son of a rich man with plenty of money to create an extensive map of coverage, generated by PR agencies. Kevin Tan on being a leader, Kevin Tan on being a son, Kevin Tan on getting married, Kevin Tan on being a devout Catholic, but not one describing why he is even notable. Why is that? scope_creepTalk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anybody seen the latest trend in conversational advertising. Check out [[2]] They will take any content generated by a company, and create an article out of it, for your brand. scope_creepTalk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Cunard. Article needs a little more clean-up by removing unnecessary stuff in the "Business career" and "Personal life" sections. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by the said user. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against Cunard is baseless. There is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever as Cunard managed to look for sources and do a WP:HEY on the article. The current version is much different from the previous one, which looked promotional. I initially opted for a redirect to the company. But due to Cunard's improvements, I'll vote to keep it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think those edits are improvememts? Ii think they made the article much was. The details of his wedding ceremony and religious observances are non-encyclopedic content. The material I quoted from above is the very model of getting promotional writing about oneself--I had originally thought the coi editor wrote it, but it was Cunard who found the promotional material in the newspapers and added it from them. WP:RS does not imply that everything in a source should be added, regardless of whether it's encyclopedic . If by any chance the article is kept, I will certainly delete almost all of it.. For a volunteer to deliberately add promotional content is almost as bad as when a coi editor does it. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG, Cunard has made a lot of clean-up and improvements in the article. Nonetheless, I see a handful of unnecessary/trivial stuff which need to be removed. Among those are his wedding ceremony and religious observances, as you mentioned. The article still needs to be trimmed down a bit to become encyclopedic. Nonetheless, Cunard's edits are really improvements whatsoever. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cunard has sufficiently demonstrated that the subject has had multiple coverage in reliable sources per the WP:GNG. —seav (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The trio of Praxidicae, DGG and scope_creep's rationale is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey and they all did a better job then I did in properly articulating it. Covert influence journalism is a huge crisis we are currently facing, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same. If there’s a claim that the subject of an article is notable then the article must speak for itself thus far all sources appear to be extended announcements and all discuss the subject within the confines of him becoming the next CEO asides that there’s nothing that expressly proves their notability. This is covert spamming and nothing more, I’m not opposed to the article being re-created at a later time but as of now this is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:BARE notability. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO per Cunard's argument. The sources presented above are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Small variations in notability either direction will not greatly damage WP. What will cause serious harm is if we accept promotionalism or articles based on promotionalism , because that will make WP pointless--it'll be no better than Google.. This is pure promotionalism from beginning to end. Google handles this as well as it deserves, as we should stay as far away as we can from them. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, UPE should never be encouraged. I appreciate Cunard's efforts here, but the coverage is heavily PR weighted. As per the nom's arguments and DGG's. Onel5969 TT me
  • Keep. Satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG or BASIC. I understand there are many WP:IDONTLIKE because of COI issue. However we should follow the rules. Taung Tan (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see why you'd relist this one, because I for one would hate to be the closer. The debate has burned a little too hotly at times, which is a shame. I have for some time now admired Celestina007's ardent stance on UPE and note Cunard is an editor of long standing and reputation, who has attempted in good faith to clean up an Augean mess here. However, I do not believe even the improved, rewritten, article is balanced in tone - and note that the sources do not provide sufficient notability for Tan as distinct from his father. I truly do not believe anyone here, standing back and taking a look at the article, would agree that the world needs to know, via this encyclopaedia, that "Kevin Tan met Michelle See, at the Opus Restaurant and Lounge at Resorts World Manila when he was at the birthday party of his friend Ricardo Po while she had delayed her dinner owing to her unpunctual friends." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person is notable only because of his father. However, instead of salting, a redirect to Andrew Tan should be created and protected. The sources that were provided by Cunard are from reliable websites, but the sources themselves are not reliable enough. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As per nom and per multiple past violations. Celestina007 and DGG rational are on to point we don't Wikipedia to like Google where we can host anything we want. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG's comments. The sources look good until you look a little deeper. Angryapathy (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that a protected redirect is a good alternative to deletion for situation like this.. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Celestina, DGG and Alexandermcnabb. JBchrch talk 12:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been mulling over this one for quite a while, and so, with the benefit of further reflection, I'll !vote Delete. This is a difficult case for one major reason: the relevant principles are effectively in contradiction. I remain convinced that Tan does indeed pass the GNG, having received, for better or worse, substantial coverage in reputable press outlets. Yet DGG's invocation of WP:NOT is also valid: in my view, the sources are so adulatory as to prevent the writing of a truly encyclopedic article. The question now is how to break the gridlock. Three points present themselves: 1) WP:NOT, as policy, supersedes the GNG, which is only a guideline. 2) The GNG creates only a presumption of notability. While that presumption is rarely rebutted, in this case it is in my view sufficient. 3) Under WP:DEL-REASON, which is also policy, WP:NOT poses its own reason to delete, independent of notability. These three facts convince me that this case presents the unusual situation in which passing the GNG isn't good enough. I have no objections to an appropriate redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_L._Tan

Leave a Reply