Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Chiu Yeng

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 speedy delete. G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895/Archive Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chiu Yeng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article has been padded out with many citations, but ultimately I do not see any strong claim to notability that warrants an independent article. Many of the sources are weak, blog-like, primary sources (i.e. links to her personal Instagram and webpage), or only related to the article subject via her father. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject had alternative name. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Matthew_hktc 13:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: the namespace Sabrina Ho was protected from creation for the concern of "Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc.", so did Draft:Sabrina Ho, Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng. Matthew_hk tc 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• I disagree.

None of this has to do with her father. And we're only cracking the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more here. Cashannam (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Note: User:Cashannam, the article creator, was suspected as a sock as block evasion. Matthew_hk tc 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ,,, Spam namedrops that should've stuck with LinkedIn. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wrong. NetEase gave her an award for being the most influential art celebrity of the year. Also founding Macau's first art auction house with China Poly Group Corporation is a widely recognized, enduring accomplishment in her field. Cashannam (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add multiple keep votes. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I made multiple keep votes? I made a single keep vote (above). The rest of my posts are responses to other user's commentary. Cashannam (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't get it: did the Delete voters look at the cites Cashnnam put up? The subject's discussed in detail in high quality media sources. Meets the GNG, done deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assess the links Cashnnam posted above, one by one:

• This is not an independent source, and the coverage is not in-depth. Article subject may have contributed monetarily to the publisher. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations is not an independent source? Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has "partnered" with a UN fund and potentially even donated to the fund. Either way, the source is clearly not independent of the article subject. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Virtually every country in the world is a United Nations member and contributes money. Does that mean if the UN writes an article about working with the United States or President Trump it's not independent? Cashannam (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not comparable. Also, this piece is essentially a press release. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was done by an unpaid Forbes contributor, not a paid member of staff. This is essentially a blog platform. The coverage is not particularly in-depth. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two page article detailing her career. Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, anyone can contribute to this "Forbes contributors" platform. These are not independent, paid journalists. This is not "real Forbes". Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however, Steve Forbes's daughter is pictured next to Chiu Yeng in the article... at the event the article is covering. Cashannam (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still not a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SCMP is a reliable source. However, the coverage still only places her in relation to a single event. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statement proves you didn't actually READ any of my sources. The coverage explores her entire career. I just listed it above in relation to Chiu Yeng meeting the Prime Minister of East Timor. You read one sentence that I wrote and replied instead of looking at the article! Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article why do you claim it's about a single event when it's not at all about a single event?

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/arts-music/article/2122384/unesco-partner-sabrina-ho-artfully-dabbles

Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it places her in relation to a single event. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, Forbes contributor platform. Basically a blog. A photo in a gallery, not in-depth coverage. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Forbes contributor. It's a Forbes Asia special report written by their staff. Did you read it? Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read it. It says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". It's not a Forbes staff member. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again. Did you READ the article? It does not state what you claim at all. Please specify where I can find the language "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". https://www.forbes.com/pictures/fdgk45jklf/sabrina-ho-chiu-yeng-25/#35f0797d56ac Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text I quoted is visible if you click through to the article that the photo is associated with. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SCMP again, same author as above. Multiple sources, intellectually independent of one another, are required to establish notability. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources... SCMP, Forbes, the United Nations... Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you posted, only SCMP is a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and the United Nations aren't reliable sources? Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons I have already explained, no, not in this particular instance. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Event bio – not any sort of publication/media coverage. Not an independent source.

A subject like this has a lot of money to hire a PR firm with the right connections to help churn out a few puff pieces. But there aren't enough solid sources to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and therefore this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But just because she may have the money to do what you described doesn't mean she has! Wikipedia:Assume good faith Cashannam (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to AGF? That policy is intended for Wikipedian editors, not the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashannam:, According to citation given by Cunard (何超盈伙教科文組織開發大數據 聯同《福布斯》數據庫 解決教育就業問題. Ming Pao (in Chinese (Hong Kong)).), Forbes had business relationship with Ho Chiu Yeng, so even it was done by Forbes / Forbes Asia staff, it hardly an independent secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statements are filled with inaccuracies and I have responded to each (above). Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. promotionalism all by itself is a violation of WP:NOT, and a cause for required deletion unless it can be fixed. It this case, it cannot be fixed, because essentially every one of the references is a promotional press release, and therefore unreliable, and there would be almost no content. And borderline content combined with promotionalism is another good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note – Cashannam is canvassing for "Keep". Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Lam Ho, the user Cunard pointed out that if you Google Emily Lam Ho's Chinese name... there is a wider variety of sources than in English. Since I am not a Chinese speaker, I posted on their talk page asking if they can have a look at this article too... perhaps Cunnard can add new insight not yet discussed.

If that's "canvassing" so be it. This article should go or stay based on quality and content. The actions of a specific user are irrelevant. Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know I'm looking for a "Keep" vote? Perhaps Cunard will review Google in Chinese and find there are no sources at all. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Citobun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashannam (talk • contribs) 2017-12-20T04:23:58 (UTC)

Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

I posted on Cunard's talk page: "Having read your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Lam Ho, since you are familiar with Chinese names and Googled hers, would you mind also having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiu Yeng Ho? Thanks."

I did not violate Wikipedia's canvassing policy. Cashannam (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this an acceptable notification per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

...

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

...

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Cunard (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "赌王25岁千金何超盈创业成老板 94岁老父感动万分" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2015-10-26. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.

     This article contains biographical information about the subject. It notes that she was born 24 September 1990 and became director and CEO of a company at age 25. It notes that she was in a list of people targeted to be kidnapped in Macau several years before 2015.

  2. 王晓易, ed. (2015-10-29). ""赌王"千金何超盈的非一般生活". NetEase. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.

     The article notes that her English name "Sabrina" came from the 1954 movie Sabrina because her father enjoyed watching films. She worked a summer job at age 16 in a court where she helped a judge with photocopying, coffee, and other tasks. It notes that she is concurrently the project director of Hewlett-Packard Asia Ltd., director of business development of Baiji Global Ltd. and director of marketing business of Molybdenum Co., Ltd. She graduated from Hong Kong University. She earned a Hong Kong real estate salesperson license and a chartered financial planner license. She helped establish the new hotel project Lisboa Palace in Hong Kong.

  3. "何超盈伙教科文組織開發大數據 聯同《福布斯》數據庫 解決教育就業問題". Ming Pao. 2017-12-10. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.

     The article discusses her joining UNESCO as a strategic partner on January 1, 2018, for a minimum of three years. It notes that she will work with Forbes on big data and artifical intelligence. It noted that prior to joining UNESCO, her best-known work was on transforming Regency Hotel.

  4. Tsui, Enid (2016-12-08). "Sabrina Ho looks to Macau art fairs and auctions to diversify economy away from casinos". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
  5. Tsui, Enid (2017-12-01). "Sabrina Ho artfully dabbles in cultural diversity, and tax havens". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chiu Yeng Ho to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep First of all i had to disclose some WP:COI that i was worked as a contractor of Shun Tak Holdings long time ago (my employer, a company, had business relationship with Shun Tak as well as Ho family), that pretty much not a real direct conflict according to wiki policy. For the subject herself, the subject was often appeared on newspaper as social celebrity, despite so much media report were tabloid journalism. The subject is pass WP:GNG, but may need major rewrite and minus those junk reporting that appeared on the newspaper as gossip (her new boyfriend, her "secret social life", those tabloid journalism). To me, her half-sister Laurinda Ho [zh] got more general media coverage that really without much work on eliminating junk tabloid journalism from a pool of source. Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is a high-profile business celebrity covered in a great number of mainstream sources in Hong Kong and Macau, as the citations above have shown. Deryck C. 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note to admin, the page may qualify for {{db-g5}}, submitting SPI. Matthew_hk tc 13:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Admin response I have struck the (now) blocked sock's comments. If you feel the page is G5-worthy you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As an additional note, should this page be kept Sabrina Ho should be recreated as a redirect to this page. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article re-creator has asked for my opinion via my talk page but did not ask for a specific opinion, making this borderline canvassing. Given the abundance of bad faith editing connected with this topic, they clearly hoped I would !vote for keep. They are going to be disappointed. I see nothing in the article or the sources provided here (including what Google Translate can help me make of the Chinese ones) that substantiates WP:GNG qualification. The significant sources are not independent and the independent sources are not significantly about the article subject. The latter category is mostly about other subjects to which this subject is connected through family ties. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:54, 20 December 2017 (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.