Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong and McKeen

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen

Doesn't seem to say anything that their individual articles don't say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deal with [[Wong and McKeen]

The timing for this nomination for deletion is quite timely. I am in dialogue with another editor concerning this article ... who proposed that the article be merged with Haven Institute.

This dialogue is on the Talk page for Haven Institute. I will copy it here so that others can see how this has been developing.

MY PROPOSAL: I would like to work cooperatively to edit this article so that it meets the Wikipedia standards that are eluding me. William Meyer (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Merging Wong and McKeen into Haven Institute

COPIED FROM TALK PAGE FOR Haven Institute

Sent to Sticky Parkin

You suggested merging these two articles. This is an interesting idea that I have contemplated in the past. When I first created both of these pages, I considered having only one entry, but I had difficulty in keeping what seemed like two topics clear of each other ... it seemed to be an excessively large sweep to try to include the Wong/McKeen development into the Haven Institute current state. As the the Wikipedia pages have developed, I can see how they could indeed be part of one entry now. However, I strongly recommend that this not be done for the following reasons:

1. Wong and McKeen have now retired from the Haven Institute, and have passed the ownership into a nonprofit charity (The Haven Foundation). So, as such, Wong and McKeen are now at "arms' length" from the Foundation and the Institute. There could be some possible confusion created by merging the two entries, implying that the Wong/McKeen collaboration is entirely within the scope of the Haven Institute. Wong & McKeen are "Emeritus Faculty" but are not part of the day-to-day operation or decision making of the Haven Institute or Foundation. The Haven Foundation/Institute functions on its own with its own Board of Directors. So, in many ways it makes sense to keep them separate. Wong and McKeen continue to be active on other fronts, with occasional input into the Haven Institute/Foundation.

2. The Haven Institute is only one of the contributions of the long association of Wong and McKeen, albeit a significant one. For example, their current work with Hua Wei University in China and Hua Wei Global Corporation worldwide is outside of the operation of the Haven Institute, and this chapter of their collaborative career is still unfolding.

3. Their books are being translated into other languages separate from the Haven Foundation, and they have been travelling and working in many other countries, but not on behalf of the Haven Institute.

So, in summary, I recommend against merging Wong/McKeen into the Haven Institute page on the grounds that they are now quite separate endeavours. They relate to each other, but one does not fall inside the other. I am interested in your responses to this.

William Meyer (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen both have their own articles so there's no need for an article on 'wong and mckeen'. You'll find nothing like that on wikipedia IMHO, unless it's a law firm or something. It's not encyclopedic in tone or nature. All of it can be covered in their own articles, or the haven one, and probably most of it already is.

Sticky Parkin 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,there is a similar situation with Simon and Garfunkel. There are separate articles for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel and then a separate article for the duo. Indeed, I followed this prototype when I created these separate pages. In the Simon and Garfunkel situation, this works well to keep a clear distinction of their activities separately and together. Then, the parallel continues when Wikipedia deals with the creative contribution of the duo of Simon & Garfunkel. There is a separate page for the Simon & Garfunkel discography, which points to a "Main Article" on a separate Wikipedia page Simon & Garfunkel discography.IMHO, this works very well indeed.

Wong and McKeen is a unique duo, in much the same way Simon and Garfunkel is unique. The Wong/McKeen teamwork crosses the borders between art, science, and philosophy. If their work were simply subsumed into the container of one of their contributions, this wider significance could easily be missed.

If the main reason for considering merging is "duplication" or "overlap" I believe this can be handled with some clear and sharp editing, which I would propose to undertake. As an initial action, I would propose to remove almost all of the section from the Wong and McKeen article entitled "The Haven Institute" .... this is adequately covered in the Haven Institute article and should not be duplicated.

I want to deal with this respectfully and cooperatively. Will you give me the chance to clear up the duplication and edit it as I propose, and continue this dialogue? Sincerely, William Meyer (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Garfunkel were a well known band or duo, these aren't. If you see how often this phrase is mentioned, you'll see they are not notable independently of their own articles, which already exist.[1] compare to simon and garfunkel [2] They're mentioned 10,000 times more, and about 5000 times more in newspapers [3] [4] so you can see it's not at all comparable. Let's turn the question around. I'll see what is not already mentioned in the other articles. That way we can see how much this article is needed.:) Oh and the pic, I would love it to be changed, it's just cheesy, but that's my personal preference and I have no other reason for it.:) Sticky Parkin 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wong & McKeen are not comparable in terms of sheer numbers. But the structure of the articles is surely what is at issue. They are well known (although not superstars) and the references that are cited in the Wong and McKeen page prove they are notable; if you follow the list of references, the topics covered in these media articles are on many topics, not just what they have written ... and they are third-party. Indeed in the WM article, the references are from independent news and reference sources for the most part. Even though your Google search does not come up with a lot of "hits", The Alan Thicke show [Alan Thicke Show Archives] shows that they have been well known for decades.

I get your spirit of cooperation in your willingness to see what is not mentioned in the other articles to determine how much this article is needed. I appreciate your willingness to investigate like this.

In the meantime, it is clear to me that the mention of the Haven Institute in the WM article is a duplication, and I will deal with this forthwith.

I will await your reply. William Meyer (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded. Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky Parkin 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Decisions

To Sticky Parkin: You wrote: delete is unencyclopedic and unnecessary due to their individual articles and separate article about the Haven Institute that they founded.

Not notable as a collective entity. Plus the pic is painful. Sorry WM.:) Sticky

I yield ... you are intent upon deleting this page. I will not resist this further.

Will you put a redirect so that other links to Wong and McKeen will be redirected to Haven Institute? Please advise. William Meyer (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in practice it duplicates. As for the Haven Institute page, that could use some serious editing, as could the articles on the individuals. WP is not a bibliography of local newspaper articles. DGG (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Major Editing Completed

I have completed a major editing of the this article to respond to the criticisms from the editors (above), who are discussing deletion or merging of this article.

I believe I have addressed the criticisms of the different editors who have written about this article, and request that this article be retained, or merged with the Haven Institute article. William Meyer (talk) 19:01, 9 November 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.