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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hui[edit]

The following is copied from Talk:Jack_Hui

Reasons to keep the article "Jack Hui"

1. The argument provided by user Cyktsui to delete this page is that the case is only suspected. However, the nature of the case is clearly stated in the article: "Hui pleaded not guilty in the first trial on January 12, 2007 and the judge granted a request to delay the trial so that Hui could sit for the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination.". There is no defamatory, only attributable facts.

2. The subject in question is sufficiently notable, not only because of his suspected indecent assault case, but also his achievement. Googling his Chinese name will result in tons of verifiable information.

3. The article is neutral and independent (As a matter of fact, I don't know Mr.Hui personally) but I know more about him because of the reports of his case from the mass media.

4. The article is informative, and well sourced.

That's all, thanks!. - INTELer 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the article is POV, but it seems like Jack Hui is not significant enough as Wikipedia article. There are a large nubmer of people participated in IMO, with higher achievement, but not having their own article (not that they should). --Cyktsui 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep - there are lots of references provided, but most are in Chinese (which I don't speak), so I can't tell whether they constitute "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" as required to meet WP:BIO. An opinion from a neutral Chinese speaker would be helpful here. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 11 - 13 are newspaper articles in related to the sex crime accusation while others are results of Mathematical Olympiad. --Cyktsui 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thinly sourced allegations of sexual offence makes me think of another similar article that was deleted - Brian Peppers. As far as the provided references say, the coverage resulting from his awards was at best trivial (being mentioned in several lists of top students, nothing more), but the coverage of his trial has been disproportionate. I suppose this lopsided coverage of a living person goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. (I can read the Chinese references.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 15:59Z
Comment: Brian Peppers was a American convicted sex offender who became the subject of a Internet meme. WP:BLP concerns were invoked in deleting his article. In comparison, the subject of this article hasn't even been convicted and he's already the talk of the town (figuratively speaking). I do not support the keeping of this article unless Jack becomes noted (i.e., has become the subject of a detailed write-up in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia) for something other than his alleged offence or his awards. (Here's more information on the deletion discussion of Brian Peppers' article.) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-09 16:10Z
Keep silver in the IMO is notable. The trial is NN and a BLP violation unless he is convicted--but it alone would still not be enough, because of the relatively trivial nature. DGG 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this AfD a joke? There're multiple mentions in notable newspapers, and even a HK government website has mentioned him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A view from an unregistered user from Talk:Queen's College, Hong Kong

I just want to ask what is the purpose of posting the two articles up? No doubt they are facts. But, as Cyktsui said, there are so many students in Queen's College, it would be impossible for the school to control every stuedent and their behavior. Again, it is unfair to put the blame on the school as student's behavior is on his own responsibility. Besides, the Form 7 student is now having his advanced level examination. I think the incident had caused great hit to him already. This high-sounding post which included his full name will cause further blow to him mentally, let alone he is still in criticial time now. He is still assumed to be innocent until he is finally convicted by the court. Some people in Hong Kong may consider Queen's College as one of the prestigious school in Hong Kong. The public may put high expectation on the school. Therefore, this incident was exaggerated by the mass media as it had high "news value". Or some poeple may think the school doesn't deserve its name. They want to make up of this incident to censure the school. Finally, I appeal to delete the post as it is unfair to the school, to that Form 7 student and upset the schoolmates much. --Kianss 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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.