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 delete. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Fook Cheong, PPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

1. Non-notable.
2. Vanity and this is observable by the liberal use of superlative.
3. A large part of the article is about Feng Shui and not about the person. We already have an article about the pseudo-science.
4. Possibly advertisement.
5. The creator of the article seems to share the same surname ("Tham"). So, this may be a case of conflict of interest. __earth ^(Talk) 11:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy G11. It's almost impossible to tell if the man has notability once all the effusive praise is stripped away, since I'm not sure anything would be left of the article. gnfnrf (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let's concentrate on point 1 of the nomination - the others are not reasons for deletion but for editing. The claim to be a Feng Shui master is backed up by the New Straits Times[1], and he also seems to be known as a soothsayer[2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through all of those clippings before my original claim. While most are in a language I don't read, the English ones (of which there are 5 or 6) follow a basic pattern, in which the subject is cited as an expert in an article about something else, or is the author of a set of Feng Shui horoscope style advice blurbs. The only one which seems to come close to talking about him as the subject himself is [3], but even that one doesn't tell us anything useful about him. Unless the foreign-language ones are significantly different, I don't think there is enough there to base an encyclopedia article off of. gnfnrf (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 4 is a reason for deletion. The website which the article promote belongs to a consultancy firm ran by the subject in discussion. It is selling something (snake oil, heh!) __earth ^(Talk) 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless further independent sources can be found where Tham Fook Cheong is the actual main subject of the article. There just isn't enough coverage on the individual in question as the article currently stands.Nrswanson (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (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.