Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yap Kwong Weng (2nd nomination)

Yap Kwong Weng

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yap Kwong Weng
• Articles for deletion/Yap Kwong Weng (2nd nomination)

Yap Kwong Weng (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)

Promotional with no underlying notability. The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense. For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles; he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander! He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him; and to add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities. He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published". He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices andPR about the speech.

Written by spa editor with no other significant contributions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) lack of significant substantive coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Extensive comments by article author

Contest to Deletion

Moved from talk page.

I would like to contest the nomination for deletion. This article has been deleted previously, but restored by the one who deleted it because changes and justifications were made to a satisfactory level. Below, I address some of the issues brought forward by DGG.

DGG: Promotional with no underlying notability.
My response: The article has been edited to remove unintended promotional tone. Notability of the subject has been raised - see the awards, as well as work in the Non-profit sector, additionally as position in Parami Energy Group.

Wikipedia is supposed to be informational and factual, which this article is, based on the information provided. Notability guidelines have been considered. The article meets these guidelines. More on this is discussed below.

If you take a look at notability guidelines, the awards, credentials, and public quotes are all in the article. This individual is recognized by the World Economic Forum, the World Cities Summit. He is the Country Head of Cambodia, Previous Secretary General of the United Nations Association of Singapore, and a Young Outstanding Singaporean, awarded by the Junior Chambers International.

DGG: The impressive array of references is mostly nonsense.
My response: "impressive array...." implies sarcasm.

To the best of my ability, I am being factual and referencing nearly every sentence to ensure accuracy. Giving references is part of the guidelines of wiki and I have made sure that the references are from objective sources.

The sources referenced are not to his personal accounts or any blogs that he may be able to manipulated to his needs. These include official organization sites (global dignity, world economic forum, Norwegian Ambassy) that document this individuals accolades and contributions.

On the comment about the information being "nonsense" - all information are factual and based on objective sources. Please refer to the Wiki guidelines on Wikietiquette: " • Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool. • Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor."

DGG: For example, he includes & gives references the libraries which hold a journal that published one of his articles
My response: It is a requirement of wikipedia to give references. This is not the only things that Yap Kwong Weng has written. There are several. The monograph is a compilation in which Yap Kwong Weng wrote 3 articles. It was actually a series of articles published and put together for the 1st time in the history of Singapore's Special Forces, and distributed at the ASEAN Defence Meet in 2009.

DGG: he includes & gives references to every speech he gave, He includes and gives references to every article he ever wrote. He gives in detail his non notable military experience: he rose to Platoon Commander!
My response: Again, the language used is sarcastic (Refer to Wikietiquette). Giving references is part of the Wiki process. Platoon Commander is not the only position held (it was actually an early position), there were many other positions in the military. These were not mentioned by DGG. Also, Graduating as a Navy Seal is notable at least in the world of the armed forces especially the US. I am unsure why there is a problem in stating that as a fact.

Also, DGG only picked a few minor things that may confer notability to refute the article. He did not mention notability seen in awards, such as Young Global Leader, Rotary, CSIS, Global Dignity, and others mentioned in the article. Also, Yap Kwong Weng has also gained recognition with youth work, has contributed to NGO work, and has given speeches at regional levels, as seen in the references.

DGG: He's COO of a company, but not ceo--this doesnt make for notability, but it does permit including a great many refs that are about the company, not him;
My response: Being a COO is part of the C-suite (refer to Wiki definition of COO). Parami Energy Group is now one of the Global Growth Companies of the World Economic Forum (2015) (Reference: http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/global-growth-companies-honourees-2015). To be a GGC company is a global recognition that is awarded to the highest potential growth with significant potential and achievement. (Reference: http://www.weforum.org/community/global-growth-companies). As COO of this group, it therefore is considered to be notable. Yap Kwong Weng was COO before this company got GCC. He has been included in many business projects and is notable in the Myanmar business community as seen from the references especially in the areas of CSR.

On notability - Yap Kwong Weng is notable under the "Any biography" section under notability as he has won awards in his field and has made a lasting contribution in it. See above mentioned awards received (also in the article) from significant world organisations like World Cities Summit, World Economic Forum. These are notable awards. Why has DGG not contested based on that information? Yap's notability is not only based on his position in Parami, but also because of the awards received by world recognized organizations and bodies.

DGG: To add speeches he gave complete with quotes that "Myanmar is one of the fastest-growing economies" and similar profundities
My response: There is nothing unnotable or promotional about that. Yap Kwong Weng has been quoted as the COO of Parami. Also, Myanmar is undergoing change which needs more support from the international community to improve the lives of the people there. Yap is playing a role in that process, as shown in the references. Many of the quotes and references come from Asian news sites and magazines which may not be as well known to a Western audience. However, this individuals contributions and renown is dominantly in the South East Asian context, thus media coverage of him is expected to be in such a context.

DGG: He includes such honors as an essay competition he won, and thinks 4 articles in a field amounts to "widely published".
My response: We remove the word "widely" if DGG is not comfortable with it. But including the CDF essay competition in Singapore military is considered reasonable. The article was about ex-military personnel (often stereotyped) being more recognised in the workforce. That is hardly promotional, rather, it is a study that benefits military personnel.

Also, the article written about dignity for the Lee Kuan Yew school is notable in the Asian context. This was not highlighted. The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is recognised in Singapore also Worldwide, especially in Asia.

DGG: He spoke at TedX, not Ted, but this justifies a number of citation to notices and PR about the speech.
My response: This has been changed already. I am not sure why DGG has chosen to pick this as an issue. Also, according to a Forbes article, this was stated: "TED and TEDx are powerful events because their organizers and staff don’t do it for the money or the fame – for which there is neither. They do it to make a difference. And people that do things out of passion, do them better". There's no evidence to suggest that PR exists in the speech. It's just media reporting which the author is doing due diligence by stating it down as part of the Wiki guidelines on referencing.( Reference: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/06/19/heres-why-ted-and-tedx-are-so-incredibly-appealing-infographic/)

In any case, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. I, as an author, have explained to the one who previously deleted the article that I had viewed TEDx and TED as synonymous. However, with the difference being pointed out, I have consented to change it. I am not sure why this was again brought up as an issue.

There are also many areas such as UN association work, etc. These were not mentioned in DDG's assessment and taken into account. DDG has narrowed his nomination to minor details and on articles. There is a much greater scope on the subject that has not been mentioned in the nomination for deletion. The subject is notable and the presented information prove it.

I would appreciate that DGG prove that this article contains "promotional activities", or has an intent to promote. And if there is, to point it out or to change it. The tone has already been edited by user jimbleak, and I as the author am willing to adjust if needed (I am still learning how to put up wiki article). Appreciate if DDG could help improve the article. Please advice on what to include and what to omit.

Wikiwak991 (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.

as for the rest, an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion. An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.

As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.

the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.

Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.

Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.

If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort. -- DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Contest to Deletion

DGG: yes, the article has been changed to reflect "Tedx" instead of TED. because I myself changed it when I still thought the article was worth rescuing.

Response: Thank you for your comments and for changing it. On two occasions, you argued for the importance of differences between Ted and TedX. Now you said you changed it initially because you thought it was worth rescuing. So that settles the issue about TED and Tedx.

DGG: ..an article about a particular person whose content is how the activities in which he engages is important is promotion."

Response: This statement is untrue according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no promotional intent nor backdrop that show the subject is being promotional. In fact, most wiki articles on notable subjects contains the activities in which the person has been involved in. In any event, the notability factor of a subject is guided by certain criteria, not the ‎opinions of the editor or how yourself (DGG) thinks it should be. There is no indication in the references that the subject is promoting himself. I have already mentioned this in my previous posting and stated my rationale and supporting evidence.

The content on Yap Kwong Weng is factual and quoted on the news and articles. I don't see why it is considered promotion. Can you please explain this part again? I remain unconvinced of your assertions on this because it lacks supportive evidence of your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

DGG: An actually encyclopedic article just used a link.

Response: I have tried to use and include links and other references, which is widely seen in wiki articles, as well as included links to the information about this subject. Please clarify this statement.

DGG: As for or articles claiming WEF for notability--such honours are self-promotion, or at best mutual promotion of each other.

Response: Again, your response that such honours from this organization is mutual promotion is an opinion and a big generalization. WEF is known to world leaders, organizations and thousands around the world for its content, delivery and substance. The World Economic Forum Young Global Leader award is an honor given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. It is definitely not self-promotion. Please refer to this link that explains what the Young Global Leaders are: http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders

So I do not agree that this blanket statement, which is not a fair statement to the 1000 YGLs in the world who include many notable people. Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders: Mark Zuckerberg, Jared Cohen, David Karp

Every Young Global Leader has a Wiki page linked to them, even the ones who are not household names, but are notable in their field and region: Johannes Weber, Ahmed Mater, Zibusiso Mkhwanazi, These are just a few, but the whole list can be found at: List of Young Global Leaders. In fact, Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). (http://www.weforum.org/young-global-leaders/jimmy-wales) Also, as stated under the Additional criteria for Notability: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

DGG: the UN association work is head of a national branch of an organization. We don't consider such national branches notable, much less the head of them. I didn't mention everything possible: that would be overkill.

Response: If national branches are not notable, then what is? Maybe he can give examples. This is only one area of the subject's life, which should not be generalized as a failure for notability. Is this a criteria put up by Wiki or your own preference again? There are many notable people who hold office in national branches. What about regional branches then? Head of Global Dignity Cambodia? Rotary Peace Fellow? They are not national designations, but international ones. These are not brought up for consideration again, which again, brings back to the point of narrow focus. Global Dignity is a non-profit organization that advocates for dignity around the world. It is headed by the Crown Prince of Norway., and there is nothing promotional or un-notable about being its chair for an emerging country in Cambodia, which faces many human rights issues.

When you say "we", who are you referring to? If this is an AfD, then you shouldn't be representing other editors but yourself? See AfD guidelines for details. I thought AfDs are meant to be an expression of community thoughts, but you don't and cannot represent the community.

The content in question is a mere representation of the work the subject has done over the years with full references from reliable secondary sources. This is to ensure full accuracy in reporting, as I did with all sentences/sections dealing with each subject. Could you kindly advise on what to include and what to remove so that it is not over saturated with information, if that is what you mean.

DGG: Graduating as a Navy seal is an honor, but not one meriting an encycopedia article. Reading the article, is no higher military position than Platoon Commander. What we expect is General.

Response: Again, DDG is speculating, and misquoting the facts. What was stated is Yap Kwong Weng previously held appointments in the military, one of them was Platoon Commander. Shouldn't this be part of the historical facts in an encyclopedia? Previously you tried use this as a point of contention, by stating that the subject "rose to Platoon Commander" as a sarcastic remark, which was untrue and misleading. It is not the role of platoon commoner that confers notability. It is merely the factual history of this subject who has notable accomplishments. Now, you are using the point about the subject graduating from US Navy Seal school as a point of contention? Since this is a fact, why can't it be stated? The military facts are important in this subject's military history and involvement in the Special Forces. The subject graduated from Class 237 of BUD/S in 2002.

Military histories are also stated in Ahmed Mater's article where it states that he was a Sergeant. Eric Greitens also the information about his Navy Seal title stated. I don't understand your logic. Yap Kwong Weng is not a General when he was in the military, but he is now COO of a Global Growth Company, which again, does not seem to be considered notable by you. There seems to be a preference for choosing minor points to provide a facade of unnotablilty. But the facts that the author brought up was not addressed. For military, Yap Kwong Weng was the editor and author of the Special Forces monograph of the SAF journal (The monograph was distributed to ASEAN militaries and used a reference in regional defence colleges concerning Special Forces operations). That fits into the requirements of Military notability, other than holding a "General" rank. Please see military notability guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide: "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing."

The subject has accumulated a number of honors which shouldn't be discounted for independent ones that DDG has scrutinized. ‎For example, according to DDG, while being a Navy Seal does not equal a Wikipedia entry, it does not mean that the subject should be 'penalized' for having the recognitions and history stated. The subject has met the criterias of notability under the "Additional Criteria". However, this is not recognized due to your preference/groundless opinions on WEF honors, an the others stated?

DGG: Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place.

Response: The purpose of Wiki is to list down references as accurately as possible. Thats what I as the author did. There is nothing factually wrong about that and this shouldn't be used as a point for contention. Based on the previous argument on referencing and factual reporting which is the very basis of Wikipedia has been addressed, to which you have replied, "Its not giving refs for each published article & speech that's a problem: it's listing them in the first place." I am now unsure what your stance on this is. You seem to hold two contrary stances on this matter.

DDG's response here is vague and very general. I thought the article was supposed to contain several links and references. I am not sure what your point is. In my previous response to DDG, I have already stated that all references come from secondary and independent sources (see criteria for biography for living persons). There seems to be a repeated argument for deletion without providing any substance in response. These points have already been addressed in previous replies, hasn't it? There is no indication that all biographies must only use links, if that is what DDG is suggesting.

DGG: If, Wikiwak991, you want to learn how to edit, it will be easier if you take clearly notable subjects, for which genuine material can be found without stretching. People who practice on semi-notable ones usually do it because of coi of some sort.

Response: Thank you for the advice. I, as the author, agree that the article is imperfect but I believe that the subject still meets the criterias to be put up on Wikipedia. I am working on another article of a composer and arranger featured on grammy award winning projects, Phillip Lassiter. I think that would present less of a problem. I picked Yap Kwong Weng as a subject because it was relevant in my regional context. While I am new to Wiki Editing and creating, I disagree with your arguments. You cannot represent the community by stating "We" in an AfD. That is not supposed to be the purpose of the discussion. Your arguments seem to be repeated and based on preferences or misinformation about organisations such as the World Economic Forum and Global Dignity. The arguments are unable to address the points mentioned, with generalizations at best, ie. stating that WEF honors are promotional by nature. A reminder of constructive discussion is advised.

Referenced from Wiki guidelines on arguments and evidence: "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive."

Referenced from Wiki guidelines: "Wikipedia documents topics as they are seen through reliable sources such as academic papers, and reputable books and news media. The work of editors is to summarize and balance those sources and reflect them neutrally and fairly, rather than to present novel ideas of their own."

At the same time, there seems to be a bias on the article based on the deletion on the previous one of the same name. I am not sure if that colours the objectivity of your arguments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete After sifting through all of the promotional language it seems the article fails WP:GNG. A LinkedIn account would be a better forum for most of this information. EricSerge (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• The article should be kept. I just saw Yap Kwong Weng speaking in the ASEAN Energy Business Forum where he spoke about Myanmar's oil and gas industry. He noted the importance of social responsibility and transparency. I am a participant from the US. He spoke well so I decided to google him, and glanced through this. I used to have a good impression of Wikipedia but seeing this today, I changed my mind. I looked through the way how comments were made on Yap. Totally unprofessional. I saw that some points (especially at the start) were coming to the point of being somewhat discriminatory, and not just being critical. Isn't the Wikipedia founder a young global leader himself? Didn't the US start the wars and got attacked in 9-11? I have full respect for people in the military, especially those who help others. Rank is not everything. And then, I saw the rest of the entry, and understood where all of this is going. If anything, more self-reflection and respect are needed. Mr Yap is obviously a known person. I don't view him as being promotional, and neither do the rest of his background. In fact, I find it this individual as a fine person with a bright future. That's all I have to say. - A disappointed American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.25.201.3 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now as I found nothing better than some News and browser links. Pinging the most still active users Safiel, Buckshot06, JamesBWatson and The Bushranger. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity article. No prejudice to recreation at some later date if notability criteria satisfied. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep article I happened to chance upon Yap’s wiki page while I was searching for some information about the world economic forum. I do not agree that this page should be deleted. Reading through some of the comments, I could feel that DGG’s comments show signs of sarcasm, personal attacks and he picks on tiny petty details. Shouldn't his comments be deleted since no sarcasm is allowed on wiki? I also especially disagree when DGG mentioned that Yap’s contribution was not notable enough. Yap is making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation, society and even in undeveloped countries. Regardless of what positions he may hold, I am sure that he had touched and changed the life of many. Over all, I think this page should be kept since there are abundant of relevant secondary and reliable resources to prove of Yap’s background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.162.115 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)