Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrbrown (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrbrown (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

After attempting to clean up this article, I realized I just could not find solid evidence of notability. The closure of 2006 AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrbrown was fine (the article needed cleaning up at the time, not deleting), but the "keep" reasoning of the participants demonstrated several flaws.

First, participants seemed to conflate notoriety (or fame) with notability. Fame doesn't equal notability.
Second, the significant coverage that can be found (sources listed in the prior AFD) are basically about WP:1EVENT, an incident that occurred in July-August 2006 in which the subject got his newspaper column suspended for mocking the Singaporean government.
It's also questionable that nearly all of the coverage comes from The Straits Times, about the subject's position as an ex-columnist in Today, a rival newspaper owned by the same holding company. It's hard to know what to make of that; it almost seems like a holding company using its newspaper properties to stir things up between them. This treads into primary-source territory.
Finally, see WP:RSP: The Straits Times is not considered a reliable source when the Signaporean government is involved in the coverage. The sources mentioned in the prior AFD aren't in this article, and they shouldn't be.

The coverage that remains is already in the article, and does not seem sufficient for the subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While The Straits Times should be used with caution for contentious facts, I see no reason why its in-depth coverage of an anti-government protestor would somehow not count toward that person's notability. It's also not the case that he's a sort of WP:1E kind of guy; he's still considered to be a prominent Singaporean blogger by RS (compare Singapore's most famous blogger from 2008). I'm seeing coverage of his political activity from sources like AsiaOne and Singapore's The Independent (1 2), and his writings have been covered by Yahoo News Singapore. I'm also seeing reviews of his "The mrbrown show". One is from The Straits Times and, while not positive in tone, it still contributes towards him being well-known. He seems to pass WP:BASIC when the sources listed above are taken together with the sources in the article (as well as those presented in the previous AfD, which were numerous). — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prominent Singapore blogger such that his facebook post got mentioned by local authority, Land Transport Authority, in an Asiaone article, his comment is reported and noted as prominent blogger in The Straits Times article over a minor Covid-19 dispute and his twitter post got reported in Asiaone. Passes GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search reveals the notability of the subject also the 1st nomination result was 'Keep'. MickyShy (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2021 (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.