History
21:53, 07 May – I create the article Duncan Pescod and edit it twice.
22:15, 07 May – Chrissymad tags the page for speedy deletion under criteria G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion and G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. I exchange several messages on the article's talk page with Chrissymad. I edit the article two more times.
23:08, 07 May – Chrissymad removes her citation of the G11 criterion. I edit the page once more.
23:55, 07 May – Article is speedily deleted by SouthernNights under criteria A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G12.
00:11, 08 May – I speak to SouthernNights who directs me to Deletion Review.
13:26, 09 May – I create a Deletion Review for the article. It gets 2 responses, both recommending sending the issue to AfD.
22:22, 09 May – Cryptic closes the Deletion Review, noting "Copyright violations are never restored."
22:29, 10 May – I begin a conversation with Cryptic. We exchange several messages between the 10th and 19th.
22:43, 19 May – Cryptic suggests I ask SouthernNights to temporarily restore the article without quotes. I do so.
03:14, 22 May – SouthernNights temporarily restores the article without the offending notes under the Sources section so it could come to Deletion Review.
His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, in a move seen as entrenching of pro-establishment interests in a highly visible and increasingly embarrassing project, as was his promotion to chief of the Authority.
While he was Director of Housing, he was involved in a scandal in which public officials (incl the Chief Executive) were found to have illegal built structures on their properties.
He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.
Many other less notable Hong Kong civil servants have articles. See Rita Lau.
Further argument
Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.
Is the man running Hong Kong's most ambitious ever arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) really less notable than Robert Hammond?
List at AfD. The article is badly written, and the subject almost certainly does not meet WP:N, but neither of those justify WP:CSD. It comes close to either WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) or WP:A7 (No indication of importance), but I'm not entirely convinced it meets either. At least in the current draft, there are a few passages which are close paraphrases of existing material, but it's not bad enough to justify WP:G12 (copyright infringement). So, bring it to AfD, which is the right place to determine WP:N questions. On the other hand, if we endorsed the speedy deletion here, that wouldn't be a terrible outcome either. -- RoySmith(talk)11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there's not much to be done about A7, as I've stated all the claims of significance I can think of, but how can I improve the article with regard to G11, the paraphrasing and the poor writing? Any suggestions would be most appreciated! —A L T E R C A R I✍12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article links to multiple sources that might plausibly pass the WP:GNG, so I don't see how we can endorse the A7. Send it to AFD, unless an administrator takes issue with the close paraphrasing (which I haven't checked; not having checked was the reason I didn't do the restoration, revdel, and relisting here myself).nb: I'm unilaterally making the editor and edit summaries of the deleted revisions visible; it was just the content that was problematic. —Cryptic23:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD per my previous comment at DRV. I think there are sources enough to address WP:N, but that's for AfD. And given the fairly local nature of some of those sources, I can see why others might disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G12 but now that that problem has been rectified, Overturn. The A7 was not valid as there are sources that might conceivably demonstrate notability. Whether anyone then wants to take it to AFD is up to them. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn and Restore This is clearly not an A7 as it stands, not even within the range of judgement. Whether it would pass an AfD is another issue, which should be considered and decided at an Afd IF anyone cares to start one. Do not automatically list at AfD, leave that to a nominator who will do a WP:BEFORE search and make a good case for deletion, if there is such an editor. The copyright issue would have been reason for deletion, but has been dealt with. I expect it will be found notable at an AfD, but no one can be sure. DES(talk)22:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
