Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Michael Wong

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael Wong

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

NOT NEWS.-- and Promotional, for both the person, and a cause. Whether an adequate article could be written about the academic career under WP:PROF is uncertain--I would normally rewriter to see, but I am not comfortable discarding the bulk of the article rather than deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this person turns out to be notable, there is nothing in the current article that would be worth salvaging... --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is plagued with peacock language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Melbourne. This level of violence towards the Public hospital doctor is a big community concern here in Australia. This is appropriate news information content for Wilkepaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.251 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is primarily about the stabbing event and it's too soon to tell whether that will have the lasting notability needed to make this an encyclopedic subject and not just a news subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I work in the health sector in Melbourne Australia and am new to contributing in Wikipedia. I am surprised to see the above comments on the lack newsworthiness on Dr Wong's story and the suggestions of deletion. Dr Wong's attack has raised concerns on the safety of health workers in Australia. On a larger scale, this story has also highlighted the increasing level of violence in our community. Currently there is no specific security measure for the majority of health workers in Australia. It is therefore of great interest to all health workers and the larger community the outcome of this attacker's court proceedings and the potential response from the government, as well as Dr Wong's view on the attack and his recovery. I do not know Dr Wong personally and thus have sought information on his story in Wikipedia. I thank the contributors for the information on Dr Wong's Wikipedia entry. It is an important story for thousands of health workers in Melbourne, if not around the world. I can easily find extensive Wikipedia entries on celebrities or entertainers. If these celebrity entries were considered far more important than Dr Wong's story, I am afraid Wikipedia will end up being no more than a second-rated tabloid. MichelleDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleDG (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MichelleDG, nobody ghere says the attack is not newsworthy. But WP is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Unless an event has lasting influence, it is not encyclopedic. And for this event, it's just too soon to know whether years from now people will still talk about it, so it's too early for an article here, too. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am surprised that others consider newspaper articles and encyclopedia entries are mutually exclusive. By definition of the Oxford English Dictionary, an encyclopedia is a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Many subjects are originated from unusual occurrence in human history. For example, the terror attack on 9/11 highlighted the dangers of Islamic extremists, the lack of airline security, etc. The fact that Dr Wong was attacked in the hospital foyer similarly highlighted the lack of security in hospitals, as well as the dangers of mentally ill people and prescribed medications. MichelleDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleDG (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — MichelleDG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any lasting value at the moment. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The tone of this article is pretty bloody awful, and it clearly needs, er, major surgery to correct it if it passes triage. It is possible that a senior consultant surgeon, a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, etc, would meet WP:PROF, however there is no evidence of that here. In the absence of evidence, the default assumption must be that this mustn't be the case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2014 (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.