Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaxue

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. — Caknuck 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaxue

Controversial, yes. Semi-famous, yes. Encyclopedic, no. Notable? No. Biography guidelines compliant? Borderline. -N 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a tough one, and someone who isn't new to the topic should ideally be able to judge this, having never heard of her before.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 13:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does have some things that could convince me the article should be kept. For example, it lists several awards it has won. If somebody could identify those awards, it may be they're able to establish notability. But really, more third-party sources would be the best way to show notability. FrozenPurpleCube 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it is proven notable. Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's gotten enough press attention to meet WP:BIO, even excluding the article about her blog getting hacked. Plus the popularity of her blog helps. It's hard to give this "Best Asian blog 2004" award any credit without knowing where it's coming from. I fixed the things I saw that were BLP problems, and all that's really left is that she makes controversial statements endorsing discrimination against foreign workers. I don't think the subject will shy away from that, so I don't think BLP requires deletion here.--Chaser - T 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Xiaxue is clearly notable; she has won several prestigious blogging awards and is often mentioned in the Singaporean press. An SGpedian with Newslink could easily dig up newspaper articles that would establish her notability; if they e-mail me newspaper articles pertaining to Xiaxue, I would be happy to write an article of reasonable quality based on said newspaper articles.
In a blog post dated 11 June 2006, Xiaxue wrote: "I am very disappointed with the admin people of wikipedia! I DEFINITELY deserve my wiki page back (far less worthy people have their pages), and I can't believe someone chose to delete it instead of requesting for my stub of an article to be expanded. If it is not biasedness I don't know what it is." I have e-mailed her (and received a reply) regarding the deletion of this article; if she wishes to make a statement in this deletion discussion, I will post it on her behalf.
In the interests of improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable bloggers and countering systemic bias, I urge everyone to vote (Strong) Keep per Hildanknight. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Turkmenbashi used to give himself the yearly award "Hero of the Turkmen". That award is as useless in my eyes as a so-called "weblog award" without reliable third party coverage. -N 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't draw inappropriate comparisons. - SpLoT // 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it inappropriate? A useless award is not an indicator of notability. -N 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      N, I am tempted to award you a useless Kaypoh Barnstar (ask any native Singlish speaker what that means). Seriously, dismissing the Bloggies - the most prestigious blogging awards - as "useless" is ridiculous. Consider the following scenario: You nominate Homerun (film) for deletion. I vote "keep", pointing out that the film won a Golden Horse Award (among the most prestigious awards for Chinese films). You respond that you only watch English films, and since you've never heard of the Golden Horse Awards, they are non-notable and useless. Would anyone take you seriously? I doubt so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're comparing a dictator with a blogger. The accolade in question was self-awarded, which is clearly not the case with Xiaxue. - SpLo T // 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. It's a discussion. We're not voting.--Chaser - T 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that AFD is a discussion, not a vote. However, counting votes is one way to determine consensus, and when one votes "per X", it means that one agrees with X's arguments (note that I never vote "per X"). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the best way to make a convincing show of this person's notability is those news articles, or at least identify these prestigious blogging awards. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2005 Bloggies Best Asian Weblog - prestigious enough for you? As for the newspaper articles, I'm waiting for an SGpedian with Newslink to e-mail them to me - once I have the newspaper articles, I will list them here (see how Rifleman 82 listed sources in the mrbrown AFD), and start re-writing Xiaxue based on information found in the newspaper articles. In the meantime, you may wish to check out Xiaxue's compilation of newspaper articles about her. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I have received the newspaper articles Rifleman 82 sent me. I am in the process of sorting them out, highlighting relevant information and figuring out what goes in between the <ref>...</ref> tags. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Xiaxue's definitely a superstar by Singapore standards: she has a TV show on state-run MediaCorp TV Channel 5, Singapore's largest English channel; her own paid-for blog on Stomp, the online wing of the Straits Times, Singapore's biggest broadsheet; her own column in The New Paper, Singapore's biggest tabloid, yadda yadda. And WP:BLP concerns are not an excuse for deleting the entire article. Jpatokal 17:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By request, here is a dump of a search of Lexis-Nexis of "Xiaxue" in "The Straits Times" in the last 5 years:
1. Don't let attacks bog down your blog; Use the same login ID and pen name for your blog, at your own risk. Local blogger Wendy Cheng aka Xiaxue is still upset over her hacked blog, even though it happened over a year ago, The Straits Times (Singapore), March 27, 2007 Tuesday, 639 words
2. Host not appropriate for TV programme, The Straits Times (Singapore), January 31, 2007 Wednesday, ST FORUM - ONLINE STORY, 103 words, Harminder Singh
3. Go from blog nerd to cyberspace hot, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 29, 2006 Saturday, LIFE! - LIFE BUZZ, 143 words
4. Get a makeover with Stomp and Urban, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 28, 2006 Friday, LIFE! - LIFE NEWS, 145 words
5. Don't tell all; People who persist in wearing their heart on their sleeve in cyberspace really cannot complain if the data they post comes back to haunt them, The Straits Times (Singapore), July 11, 2006 Tuesday, 629 words, Chua Hian Hou
6. Websites turn money-spinners; Successful personal websites and small businesses are finding new ways to generate revenue from the Internet, The Straits Times (Singapore), May 16, 2006 Tuesday, DIGITAL LIFE - INTERNET, 493 words
7. The Straits Times (Singapore), January 29, 2006 Sunday, IN THE NEWS, 457 words, Netizen petitions against blog
8. The Straits Times (Singapore), January 22, 2006 Sunday, Lifestyle - Relax, 451 words, In tune with Mandarin; Dawn Yeo, 21, made news in blogosphere when she usurped Xiaxue as Singapore's hottest blogger and was signed up by an artist management company. She tells JEAN LOO whyshe is brushing up on her Mandarin
9. The Straits Times (Singapore), December 31, 2005 Saturday, Saturday Special Report, 266 words, Hard-hitting blogger flushed with success
10. The Straits Times (Singapore), November 6, 2005 Sunday, IN THE NEWS, 500 words, Toilet blog whips up more stink; Criticism intensifies on blogger's take on use of toilets for disabled in letters, online forums, Jeremy Au Yong
11. The Straits Times (Singapore), October 30, 2005 Sunday, IN THE NEWS, 582 words, All flushed over toilet blog; Wendy Cheng's blog on loos for the handicapped draws a slew of complaints - leading 2 advertisers to pull out from her website, Jeremy Au Yong
12. The Straits Times (Singapore), October 30, 2005 Sunday, IN THE NEWS, 582 words, All flushed over toilet blog; Wendy Cheng's blog on loos for the handicapped draws a slew of complaints - leading 2 advertisers to pull out from her website, Jeremy Au Yong
13. The Straits Times (Singapore), September 12, 2005 Monday, ST Forum, 287 words, 'Rude' blogs popular as they have substance, Harvey Neo Choong Tiong
14. The Straits Times (Singapore), July 22, 2005 Friday, Singapore, 488 words, Blocked out of their own blogs; Contents of two blogs, including Xiaxue's, deleted and rude message left in place, Chua Hian Hou
15. The Straits Times (Singapore), May 15, 2005 Sunday, Click, 201 words, Watch out for the wallpaper, Serene Luo
16. The Straits Times (Singapore), April 3, 2005 Sunday, IN THE NEWS, 185 words, Pride: No longer the most deadly
17. The Straits Times (Singapore), March 26, 2005 Saturday, Singapore, 161 words, Blog proves lucrative for Xiaxue
18. The Straits Times (Singapore), August 15, 2004 Sunday, Talk, 784 words, Who says I have a foul mouth, Wong Kim Hoh

I'll email hildanknight the full text (instead of posting here for copyright reasons) and he can go and deal with it. --Rifleman 82 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep with the above list of sources, and promised additions using them in the article by Hildanknight. - SpLo T // 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references found. DGG 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the only way her notability can be debated is through a lens of Western supremism; one I would hope is not prevalent on an encyclopedia. - Vague | Rant 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jpatokal - Pharaonic 12:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Appears to have sufficient independent coverage. --Paul Erik 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversial, yes. semi-famous, yes. blogger, yes.... media coverage, check.... WP:BIO passed, check.... Notable, YEP! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really can't stand people who complain about "the Wikipedia admins" deleting them, but this is clearly notable per all the media attention. On the other hand, I fail to see how countering systemic bias has anything to do with this discussion --- we're talking about an article on an Anglophone blogger from an Anglophone country, which is hardly an underrepresented subject area on enwiki. cab 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This young Singaporean (who raised the argument about systemic bias) can't believe the number of ignorant people who think that the Little Red Dot is located somewhere in China or Wisconsin. Since when was Singapore an Anglophone country? Any geography textbook that's worth its salt should tell you that it's a Southeast Asian country. Chinese comprise three-quarters or the Singaporean population; less than 1% of the population are ang mohs (Singlish for "whites" or "Caucasians"). -J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being in Southeast Asia and having a small white population have nothing to do with what are the official languages of the country, which are detailed at languages of Singapore. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only European/North American countries with majority white populations can be "Anglophone"? cab 08:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oceania is also part of the Anglosphere. Regarding language: many Singaporeans, especially youngesters, are native speakers of Singlish - given the sizable percentage of Chinese and Malays in Singapore, these languages also have their fair share of native speakers. Although much of the population speaks English to a certain extent, few achieve native proficiency in the language. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I wish I would have 20,000 readers a day. Does Scoble or Seth have that much? Also the Chinese media (3rd party sources) seem to consider her Notable enough to expose her to millions of chinese people. Don't limit yourself by thinking that only because you don't know it (because it is not available in English and US newspapers or TV networks) that it is not notable. The world is much larger than the english speaking parts of the world. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in fact, it is available in English: the vast majority of newspaper articles on the topic are in English, as is the blog itself. For example, the 18 sources listed above. My cursory Google searching indicates that she's has probably been noted more widely by English-language media than Chinese-language media. cab 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because LexisNexis only searches English-language sources such as The Straits Times and The Sunday Times - in fact, all the newspaper articles listed above are from these two newspapers. Xiaxue has listed at least two Lianhe Zaobao articles in her Media Centre - does anyone know of a service similar to LexisNexis that searches Chinese newspapers?

During your "cursory Google searching", did you search for "Xiaxue" (280 kilogoogles) or "下雪" (379 kilogoogles)? If the former, I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't find any Chinese-language sources among the results.

Perhaps I should Google the latter and dig up some Chinese-language references - if Wikipedia will let us use them. I should also Google the former as well to uncover more reliable references, both to strengthen my "keep" argument and to find information to add into the article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rifleman 82 there is ample evidence of notability to pass WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some may wonder why I have not started my promised rewrite. Here are my reasons:
- My current goal is to get I Not Stupid to GA status.
- I prefer to research and plan out an article before writing it.
- All the newspaper articles Rifleman 82 found on LexisNexis are from The Straits Times or The Sunday Times. I have read newspaper articles about Xiaxue in The New Paper and Today; Xiaxue's Media Centre lists two Lianhe Zaobao articles about her, as well as several magazine articles. During my e-mail correspondence with Xiaxue, she agreed to e-mail me said Today, The New Paper, Lianhe Zaobao and magazine articles. Having more references means having more material to write a complete article.
- In the unlikely event that the article is deleted, all my efforts to rewrite the article will be wasted. Moreover, once the rewrite is complete, I wish to assess the article's DYK potential; starting the rewrite too early would ruin any chances of Xiaxue becoming my third DYK.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:32, 20 June 2007 (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.