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.
Agree. But restore if she gets elected.Foxhound66 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's notable as a national celebrity, not (yet) as a politician. There are multiple, independent, secondary sources commenting on her, and therefore she meets the "primary notability criterion" as per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Singapore's elections will be held on May 7, before this AfD closes. Bgwhite (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nom. There is no nobility unless she wins the election. Bgwhite (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Ms Seah has made a significant splash in the usually moribund Singaporean political scene and is currently a local celebrity. As the state-friendly media usually focuses on majority-party candidates, the mere fact that they - along with social media - have made a celebrity out of her, an opposition candidate, is unusual and deserving of a Wikipedia article. I think Ms. Seah's current achievement is already significant in this election campaign and will form a standard to measure other opposition candidates in the next general election in Singapore. This is irrespective of whether she wins or loses, and whether she stays in politics or leaves (I would argue that future, non-political biography is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia, unless she enters Parliament or becomes prominent in other ways). In other words, I think that the set of "prominent Singaporean opposition politicians (elected or otherwise)" is small enough that *any* candidate with major news coverage is automatically eligible. By way of comparison, consider the limited media coverage ofJeannette Chong-Aruldoss, a candidate running from Ms. Seah's party in a neighbouring constituency, with the breadth and depth of media coverage for Ms. Seah. I considered suggesting "Keep or merge into Singaporean general election, 2011", but I think a prominent opposition candidate in Singapore - almost universally unelected - are notable enough to have articles about them. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you or Elle vécut heureuseà jamais please add some more to the article. The article, as is, does not state how notable she is. Any more information, whether political or non-political, would be very useful. I think there are 82 out of 87 seats being "contested" (with Singapore politics, contested is a very different word) and upto six different parties "contesting" each seat, however most seats have just two parties contesting. So, there are "alot" of opposing candidates. Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exams! But I will try. She is definitely notable though the article about her doesn't shed a lot of light (yet). Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your "exams" and raise you one "leaving Singapore, probably permanently, in four days and so packing like a maniac"! But I will try as well. -- Gaurav (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The culture by which we judge the notability of candidates in western elections (which WP:POLITICIAN is based on) is not suitable for judging articles on people who participate in less-than-free democracies, but I don't think the nominator knows how disingenuous this nomination is. She is not "a political candidate only". Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODFAITH, La goutte de pluie. Off2riorob only had the article as it was to judge by. I'm sure we can change people's minds by improving the article and arguing our case here! -- Gaurav (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: Nicole Seah's significance (and hence notability) has nothing to do with being a member of the NSP, or in being elected. In fact, I would argue that were Ms. Seah's team to win in the Marine Parade GRC on Saturday, the *other* members of her team would not be "notable" for individual Wikipedia articles, and that a notice of their achievement would be more appropriate on the NSP's article. Ms. Seah's notability comes from her becoming a political celebrity, which is something to do with her alone, and not with her party or even her political future. -- Gaurav (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The people who recommended deletion are either her political opponents or obviously know nuts about Singapore politics. Nicole's facebook entry - no of likes - has already surpassed Singapore's founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew within days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs)
facebook is not a measure of actual popularity. Anyone cna create multiple accounts and 'like' a person. 'Like's on facebook don't equate to actual agreements; for example people 'like' the Whitehouse faebook apage to spew hatred against Barack Obama.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth will create 60 000 accounts to like a person on Facebook within a period of 10 days?
One please sing your posts, I get scolded for not doing so. Second, who is not the right word. It is many netizens. All you have to do is create multiple accounts. Yoru argument does not stand.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Nicole Seah is not notable, why does CNN (for the first time in Singapore political history) bother to come all the way to a small neighbourhood market to interview her?
Keep per Hans Adler. The references currently in the article are sufficient to show that she meets WP:GNG. --bonadeacontributionstalk 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You got to keep this, she has inspired a whole country in this coming General Election Raymond Ng (raymond@marketingyou.me)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.20 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved previous entry from the top for organization. Also added bullet and made the !vote bold - frankieMR (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She has help us to stand up for our rights, so we must not delete her page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.26 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepfor now. If going by national press She crosses the bar for multiple, 3rd party, reliable sources that cover her as the main subject. James Gomez wasn't elected either, but there were enough of similar sources to have an article on its own. Personally I'm hoping that there will eventually be foreign-media sources, but if she ever fades away after the elections we can always consider coming back here or to merge it to the NSP/GE2011 article. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - its local news and for Wikipedians in Singapore it must be interesting but surely you have a Singaporean wikipedia to work on local stuff - this would not get support in a British candidate or a USA candidate. You can't comment keep for now and redirect when its realised its not actually notable because its of local interest to you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a Singaporean wikipedia, and Singapore doesn't have provinces like Britain or USA. Our local press is the national press; Local news in our context, is national news. - Mailer Diablo 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedias are divided by language, not region: in an ideal world, *all* of them would have content for *everywhere*. It's not meant to be divided geographically. -- Gaurav (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments about being the "most popular" and "standing up for your rights" does mean notable. So many politicians in Thirld World countries stand up for people's rights and dont get a wikipedia page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer diablo is talking about sources covering her (thus meeting WP:GNG), not about being popular or standing up for rights. Are you responding to 220.255.1.26? -- Gaurav (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, my look through their edits has most their edits about Italian films and other Italian subjects, not Singaporean politics. GB fan (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I see why this was nominated, the article has blossomed into a well referenced article. I would agree with a merge if her group is not elected. I recommend delaying the closing of this AFD until after the election, since it is so close. Denaar (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Right, a swarm of socks that don't seem to realize how blatantly obvious it is that they are socks aside, I see significant third party coverage here. Even if it fails WP:POLITICIAN, which is questionable at best, it meets WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:POLITICIAN, without exception. Sven ManguardWha? 07:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that I'm coming here from a link to the Village Pump. FYI. Sven ManguardWha? 07:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets WP:GNG guidelines to be worthy of mention.--TVBdxiang(Talk) 13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Don't understand why someone can recommend this for deletion where there are tonnes of less notable people in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs)
KEEP - People citing WP:POLITICIAN are not reading and understanding it. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah have satisfied this description as Singapore enters into its most competitive political climate it's seen in decades. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please point us at the significant in depth coverage. What I see are listings of candidates, facebook pages, passing mentions in news stories and gossip pages about how pretty she is. Really, this is not significant in depth coverage. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I am seeing. Just following the three references on the article that have her name in the title, I see an 8 1/2 minute news piece specifically about her from the Straits Times, an article about her getting a "'rockstar' treatment", and an article in which one of the other candidates for her party is asked to justify putting her in the front publicity-wise: "Nicole has been in the media line for two years now, and she's the obvious choice of spokesperson, but we work as a team with each member handling other aspects of the campaign, crafting plans and working out how to get citizens to understand us better." These are definitely not passing mentions. Taken alone, they might not be enough for a biographical article, but the article is a proper biography, and the information appears to be all properly sourced. HansAdler 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Her status is that of a celebrity, and when a whole country is talking about someone, I don't care in the least whether that person is a politician, a street sweeper, or known for cat juggling. Further, although our policies don't formally recognize the value or importance of social media, in a country that lacks a free press, as is the case in Singapore, social media does become relevant to notability. My view in that regard becomes more emphatic especially where persons the government would prefer weren't talked about are concerned. And re that point, there's no one in Singapore who has more "press" via social media than this subject. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (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.
