Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Kok Liang

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 redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Kok Liang

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

I've just declined the speedy A7 on this, as there's enough there for CSD. However, not sure about GNG however, hence bringing here. Ged UK 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nominator

S$49,599 fraud is a very typical crime in a huge market like Singapore. (And no reference for that amount)
We can see his name mentioned only 1,470 times in the entire word wide web. (even so, it doesn't necessary mean all results are belong to the intended person)
If we closely look at the date of the references, we can see all the references are over 25 years old published paper newspaper.Extremely unlikely to verify. Soewinhan (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article --- old references are fine unless you have evidence that they are incorrect --- assume good faith please. This was a big case in Singapore, and it is often cited in law journals (search for Tan Kok Liang, in Google Books). There is no reason to delete this at all. Francis Bond (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "well referenced" doesn't make an article notable. Google Books 47, scholar 10 (Please note that there is also a reputable doctor named Tan Kok Liang). He is notable for a crime only. Technically, he shouldn't have an article himself, but need to be mentioned in his crime article. But, the problem is how notable is his crime? Is there any policy change? Or international reactions? Is that shaken the market? Clearly not. More simply it doesn't even have any lasting effects. He was sentenced only 9 months in jail. If that be minimum requisite, there are thousands more criminals in Singapore who had committed more serious crimes. (the entire world?) Soewinhan (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the market was shaken according to the Asian bulletin, which clearly states "The Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" which seems to suggest a certain notability. [1] Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article which has what appears to be a non notable petty criminal as a subject. As noted above, the crime did not rise to a level of notability. Further; most hits are for a "same-name" subject. --Stormbay (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -well referenced article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A determination whether this article is well referenced or not should decide the keep or delete of this article. We have opinions at both ends of the spectrum. Re-listing may bring a fresh view as to importance but please look at the references. --Stormbay (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: this was a big case in Singapore, as is clear when you read some of the citations. For example:

Here is a snippet about him in the Asian bulletin, which states "the Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" [2]
Here is something about him in Asia 1987 year book. [3]

Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see you are saying Collapse of Pan-Electric Industries which is a notable case, involving many business entrepreneurs like Tan Koon Swan, Peter Tham, Tan Kok Liang and many others. WP:1E suggests that the rule is to cover the event. Not the pompous biographies of everyone involved in that case.

I suggest we should copy some materials to Pan-Electric Industries and delete or redirect this article like we did in Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. I'll take all Pan-Electric related cases of these three persons and put them in the company's article. Soewinhan (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with that, so long as we keep all the relevant information. Consider me persuaded. Francis Bond (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan's plan sounds like an excellent solution. --Stormbay (talk) 19:00, 11 January 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.