Deletion of Rupert Dover (2nd nomination)

Comment: Since the DRV, I've seen no attempt to address the very legitimate concerns about BLP violations. Editors shouldn't wait for it to be deleted before once arguing again at DRV that it isn't an attack page and can be improved. There's already some advice above how to improve it, but I fear that there will be little left once the "illegal structure" stuff is trimmed to give the matter its |due weight and other trivia removed. As already mentioned, someone of Dovers rank isn't inherently notable, and the fact that Michael Yip, his predecessor, nor others of the rank or below who haven't media career, or haven't been implicated in heinous crimes, don't :Category:Hong Kong police officers|have a WP article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: Not notable.  Serious  issues, the Rupert Dover#Property controversy is completely inappropriate, as it is a private issue devoid of secondary source coverage from a distant perspective.  The sourcing is essentially investigative journalism plus official sources, all primary source material.  It is a ttack page because it is desperate coverage of anything after the failure to tie the individual, on Wikipedia, to the incident where Hong Kong Police Force shot at protesters.  If stubified by removing the property issue, it is even more clearly non-notable, a senior police officer in the Kowloon West (constituency), and that page does not mention him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:A)

Comment: This isn't a  problem as there's ongoing tabloid coverage of him, it's a  issue. I've noted multiple times at the ongoing deletion review that this page really doesn't show the lasting notability of Mr. Dover, someone whose position in a normal city would not lend itself to notability. This page is being used to effectively cover an ongoing scandal in which he has been involved in  format. The article has served as a  in the past for complaints against his leadership, and is currently covering a minor and ongoing scandal in  format. Per , {{tq|Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives}}. This article does not meet that standard. Nothing has changed since October, and this article should be salted if and until a completely neutral, doxproof version of the article can be created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP)

Comment: per Cunard—probably the first and last time I will write that phrase—but it's clear that he's notable beyond a single event. Enforcement of , with page protection if necessary, is preferable to deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Although the ''Apple Daily'' coverage on it's own would likely not be enough to be notable, the substantial coverage by other secondary sources seem to warrant the retention of this article, as notability seems reasonable. Notability is not necessarily based on "achievements", and even if ''Apple Daily''&apos;s investigation is not found to be just, I think the secondary coverage of ''Apple Daily''&apos;s report and subsequent reactions are notable enough. Per , IMO there is little question of the notability as the subject has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)