330:
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)
199:
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
329:
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
128:
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
146:
I am not saying the article is POV, but it seems like Jack Hui is not significant enough as
Knowledge 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
235:
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
Knowledge) for something
132:
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.
155:- 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
241:
136:
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.
267:
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.
283:
112:
323:
311:
185:
Ref 11 - 13 are newspaper articles in related to the sex crime accusation while others are results of
Mathematical Olympiad. --
17:
301:
Is this AfD a joke? There're multiple mentions in notable newspapers, and even a HK government website has mentioned him.
85:
80:
200:
of his trial has been disproportionate. I suppose this lopsided coverage of a living person goes against the spirit of
89:
168:
341:
72:
36:
340:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
248:
208:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
161:
289:
307:
316:
292:
273:
189:
180:
54:
227:: Brian Peppers was a American convicted sex offender who became the subject of a Internet meme.
129:
for the Hong Kong
Advanced Level Examination.". There is no defamatory, only attributable facts.
49:
252:
212:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
302:
176:
228:
201:
156:
120:
76:
186:
106:
231:
concerns were invoked in deleting his article. In comparison, the subject of
269:
256:
216:
68:
60:
244:
more information on the deletion discussion of Brian
Peppers' article.)
159:. An opinion from a neutral Chinese speaker would be helpful here.
334:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
142:
That's all, thanks!. - INTELer 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
102:
98:
94:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
139:4. The article is informative, and well sourced.
344:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
282:: This debate has been included in the
204:. (I can read the Chinese references.)
125:Reasons to keep the article "Jack Hui"
322:A view from an unregistered user from
7:
240:his alleged offence or his awards. (
284:list of Hong Kong-related deletions
24:
324:Talk:Queen's College, Hong Kong
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
119:The following is copied from
361:
317:02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
293:02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
274:01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
55:02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
190:14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
181:14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
337:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
249:Resurgent insurgent
209:Resurgent insurgent
315:
295:
287:
259:
219:
178:
53:
352:
339:
305:
288:
278:
261:
251:
221:
211:
179:
175:
173:
166:
110:
92:
52:
34:
360:
359:
355:
354:
353:
351:
350:
349:
348:
342:deletion review
335:
245:
205:
169:
162:
160:
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
358:
356:
347:
346:
331:
320:
319:
296:
276:
262:
222:
194:
193:
192:
153:Very Weak Keep
149:
148:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
357:
345:
343:
338:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
318:
313:
309:
304:
300:
297:
294:
291:
285:
281:
277:
275:
272:
271:
266:
263:
260:
258:
254:
250:
243:
239:
234:
230:
226:
223:
220:
218:
214:
210:
203:
198:
195:
191:
188:
184:
183:
182:
177:
174:
172:
167:
165:
158:
154:
151:
150:
145:
144:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
126:
123:
122:
121:Talk:Jack_Hui
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
51:
50:Seraphimblade
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
336:
333:
321:
303:Hong Qi Gong
298:
279:
268:
264:
246:
237:
232:
224:
206:
196:
170:
163:
152:
141:
138:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
253:2007-04-09
238:other than
213:2007-04-09
312:Contribs
113:View log
69:Jack Hui
61:Jack Hui
225:Comment
187:Cyktsui
86:protect
81:history
242:Here's
229:WP:BLP
202:WP:BLP
197:Delete
157:WP:BIO
90:delete
255:16:10
215:15:59
147:(UTC)
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
308:Talk
299:Keep
280:Note
265:Keep
233:this
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
290:cab
286:.
270:DGG
171:ton
164:Wal
111:– (
310:-
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
48:.
314:)
306:(
257:Z
247:—
217:Z
207:—
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.