Rupert Dover – Endorse, as not actually suitable sources were presented and the review appears to be an attempt to relitigate the AFD, which we don't do at DRV. A redirect is perhaps a possibility if the topic gets discussed anywhere Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rupert Dover is the first police commander who asked the police to open fire towards Hong Kong citizens since 1967, thus have historical importance. He is, therefore, a key-person regarding the history of Hong Kong as well as the police-citizen relationship. He especially plays an important role as the Hong Kong police force was accused of so much police brutality in just a few months after his decision to open fire on June 12, 2019, and those accuses are much more than the sum of the past decades. Besides, he has more than 4 millions Google search result.--習振英 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice quoting your search's got there. —Cryptic 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)}[reply]Somewhat less snidely, those four million hits you claim include every page mentioning anyone or anywhere named either Rupert or Dover. A proper search for "Rupert Dover" estimates 11500, which is still a far cry from the "few Ghits" mentioned in the AFD. (I haven't actually more than glanced at any of them, mind you, and counting google hits ≠ research.) —Cryptic 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The appellant appears to be re-arguing the AFD rather than taking issue with the close, and Delete was the only possible finding by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is for determining whether there was an error in the closing of an AfD. It is not for just re-arguing the AfD. ReykYO! 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where we deal with errors made in the deletion process. It is not a de novo appeal or opportunity to argue points that were, or could have been, made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not the best attended AfD, but consensus is clear, and I don't want to advocate for a relist when it's also fairly clear the fact WP:G10 could be applicable means we're better off keeping this deleted as opposed to giving it a chance. SportingFlyerT·C 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD is fine and I don't see any good reason for revisiting it here. Having lots of Google hits doesn't mean anything in itself. If his only significance is in being in charge of the police response to the protests then we definitely shouldn't have an article on him per WP:BLP1E especially as the article was being used as a mechanism to attack him for it. Events relating to the protests should be covered in the article(s) about them. Hut 8.5 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Disagree with the !vote mentioning CSD#G10, the google cache shows an innocuous senior police offer stub. No WP:BLP issues. The sources are poor, I see an unambiguous WP:BIO1E with respect to coverage of the Hong Kong riots. The article could have been redirected, but the decision to delete was sound. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: the article was edited the day before it was deleted to remove almost all the content related to the protests. Hut 8.5 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wouldn't want to challenge the outcome of that AfD, I do think that if someone's name has 10k+ google hits then it's a plausible search term on Wikipedia and we can do better than leaving it as a redlink. Maybe Rupert Dover's name should redirect to the article about the protests?—S MarshallT/C 16:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is not mentioned anywhere in any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's easily fixed, to be fair.—S MarshallT/C 22:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
