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)

• Note: The heading of the following hidden text says it is by "article author". A glance at the article's history is likely to give the impression that the editor in question is not the author of the article, but that is because for some reason (perhaps by mistake) the administrator Jimfbleak, when restoring the current article after deletion, also restored the edits of a previous version of the article, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yap Kwong Weng. Wikiwak991, who wrote the hidden text is indeed the author of the current article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 8 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)

None of the reliable sources that I have seen point to significant contributions, nor have significant coverage of him. Please could you provide citations to these reliable sources and for each one explain what that specific significant contribution is? --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep article Apologies for extensive comments. Yap Kwong Weng is notable in the Asian context. He is a Young Global Leader under the World Economic forum, which is a notable global organisation. Many famous people or people in important positions in country/fields are Young Global Leaders, such as Mark Zuckerberg. The honor is given to individuals selected on a selection basis based on public nomination. He is also the country head of Global Dignity in Cambodia, as well as the COO of Parami Groups Myanmar, which is a leader in Myanmar Oil and Gas industry. The subject meets the basic requirements of notability under the "other" category. In the military context, Yap Kwong Weng has made significant contributions to the Armed Forces, as well as the Special Forces. The issues pointed out were focused on the more minor facts that on its own, do not confer notability (which is the main gripe), but against the backdrop of these achievements and contributions, serve as a factual account of this subject's history. DGG's concerns have been addressed previously, but he re-iterates the same points again to argue for deletion. Wikiwak991 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. A substantially promotional article, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the "keep" arguments are rather vague rambling discourses where it is difficult to make out what reason is being advanced for keeping the article, beyond "I think he's a noble and important person", and where the reasons given are clear, they do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, such issues as "making a difference to the world through his contribution for his nation", "made significant contributions to the Armed Forces", being deserving of "respect" and being "a young global leader" do not feature at all in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We can, of course, ignore the ad hominem attacks on the nominator. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, do relate to Wikipedia's notability guidelines: this is perhaps the most extreme case that I have ever seen of bombarding an article with huge numbers of "references" of no value at all. Many of the references don't even mention him, and the few that do mention him do nothing to indicate notability. (Although it is not part of the reason for deletion, it is perhaps worth noting that the arguments for keeping the article are from one account and two IP addresses all of whose recent editing has related to this article, and some of the comments from the three are rather similar, which is similar to what happened in the last deletion discussion for this article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep article

The references do mention the subject in them, as far as I know. Perhaps you could point out a couple that do not mention or are not relevant to the article. I will remove those. There was no intention to attack DGG. I merely mentioned previous points brought up for deletion had been addressed, but had been repeatedly used as points of contention for deletion. It is also untrue to state that the facts presented are "vague ramblings". There have been many facts presented (please refer to above discussions and article on recognition by World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader, Rotary, Global Dignity, COO of Parami Energy Group). These are clear and distinct, not general statements that "he's a noble and important person". 155.69.161.36 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, I forgot to log on (user: Wikiwak) Wikiwak991 (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that the sources do not mention him, the problem is that the vast majority are only verification of specific facts, like a list of awardees, or mention Yak in passing, but are used for the fact his is Catholic. Notability is not the same as verifiability. Please read WP:Notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence that the subject has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. That is not just any coverage or any recognition. Coverage much be substantial, and it must show significance, as well as being published in an independent reliable source. See the basic criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Recognition means significant awards, not any awards. Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia. Lots of the cited sources in the article suffer because they are from sources that are intellectually related to Yak, such as organizations of which he is a member or of which he has been a fellow. These do not carry weight as independent. --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep article

Quoting Bejnar, "Significant awards usually have an article in Wikipedia" There is a Wiki page on Young Global Leaders (YGL) that gives a clear picture of Yap's award: "over the years. Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people, including several popular celebrities, alongside with recognized high achievers and innovators in the realms of politics, business, academia, media and the arts". See Young Global Leaders. , "Young Global Leader" is a recognition given to a few selected candidates per country who are reviewed by Heidrick & Struggles. The selection is chaired by the Queen of Jordan and a neutral committee. Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikipedia, was a Young Global Leader (2007). Candidates are publicly nominated. (Criterias state that "self-nominations are not accepted").
(Reference: http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/nominate-young-global-leader)
(Reference::http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders)
In the arguments for deletion, it was stated that YGLs are not notable and is a promotional title. Please prove this statement and justify it with facts, as well as your thoughts on why this award is not notable.

For writing: The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, ("Securing A Future for Dignity" article) is a significant reliable publication source in the regional context. The Special Forces monograph is also a peer reviewed journal article (military leadership article) by international journal of knowledge. Yap is the only editor and a contributing writer of the first Special Forces journal published by Singapore Armed Forces Journal, a regional military authority. The monograph represents one of the highest standard of Singapore's military staff writing. This meets criteria number 9 under the Military History Notability - People: "9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." Holding the rank of general is one of the many criteria that confer notability, not the ONLY criteria.

I will promptly remove sources which editors think is an "overkill", please assist in identifying and removing, if necessary. My intent was to be as factually accurate as possible with backing sources. May I also appeal to the editors to look at the subject as a whole, instead of looking at individual areas that is not representative of his entire notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikiwak991, a number of points.

1. You ask me top point out a couple of "references" that do not mention Yap Kwong Weng. This page, this one, and this one do not, as far as I can see, mention him: certainly not under that name. In fact, none of them contains any of the three words "Yap", "Kwong", or "Weng" at all. I may have been mistaken in saying that "many" of the references don't mention him, but certainly a number of them don't. This is, of course, quite separate from the fact that those that do mention him frequently just make one brief passing mention of him or include his name in a list, and that some of them are by him, not about him.
2. You seem to have difficult grasping that by Wikipedia standards, notability is not inherited from other notable subjects one has connections with. Thus, for example, Yap Kwong Weng may be the editor of a publication which satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but not satisfy them himself; he may have an award which satisfies those guidelines, but not satisfy them himself; he may have the title "Young Global Leader" under an organisation which satisfies them, but not satisfy them himself; and so on.
3. The fact that someone chooses to come along and post something to Wikipedia does not make it a valuable or reliable source of information, so quoting from other Wikipedia articles is of no value at all in establishing notability: thus, for example, you quote from Young Global Leaders as saying that "Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people", but that is not a reliable source. In fact, to me that article reads like a piece of promotional marketing-speak for the organisation.
4. Even if you were to give a reliable source saying that "Honorees have included hundreds of noteworthy people", and even if you could show that in the context "noteworthy" meant much the same as "notable" in Wikipedia's sense, it would be of no value in establishing that this particular "honoree" is notable: left handed people include many thousands of notable people, but it does not follow that all left handed people are notable. We need direct evidence that Yap Kwong Weng is himself notable, and evidence that he has an award which is also shared by many notable people does not do the job.
5. Don't keep putting bold "keep" notes at the front of your messages: as long as you have done that once, we know you want the article kept, and posting multiple bolded "keep"s could mislead readers as to how many people have argued to keep it.
6. I suggest that unless you have some new evidence to offer, continuing to post is likely to be a mistake. Largely, you seem to me to be repeatedly arguing the same points, trying to explain why in your opinion the same things you have already mentioned justify regarding Yap Kwong Weng as significant and important. This discussion will be closed by an administrator who will be well acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and will be able to see whether your reasons are in line with those guidelines. Adding yet more text to the extensive amount you have already contributed will merely make it less likely that anyone will spend the time reading it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Clearly does not meet notability requirements. Searches only turned up trivial hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep I feel a sense of injustice for the contributor. Clear blatant bullying. This is a discussion, not a forum to showcase authority you wish to portray. Whatever experience you think you might have, this is not a place to show you wish to win. If there are reasons, state them, argue them without insulting the contributor. Using blanket statements, like "Delete". No notability." is a useless form of contribution without objective reasoning. Look at DDG, he should have been removed for his blatant sarcastic remarks, but he wasn't. What's the point of stating guidelines when it's not followed? As for Bejnar, you say Young Global Leader should have a wiki site if its notable enough, this was provided by the creator of the article. You obviously did not check/read/understand in the first place. So this justifies the credibility of your assessment. For JamesBWatson, you consistently twist your words, and argue that Yap Kwong Weng is not notable but cannot really justify why, and tend to nitpick without giving any concrete reason or rationale. Then when justified that an award was given, you say its not the award that matters, but the individual and its "evidence" which has already been mentioned, but was clearly unaccepted. Can't you read on the links what the subject has done or did you even read it at all? You then move into a baseless assertion mode to nitpick about this award definition by Wikipedia. i.e whether given to notable or noteworthy people, however you wish to twist it. Why don't you go ask the editors who wrote that instead? Now let's assume that World Economic Forum is "at best promotional" as DGG ridiculously puts it, how do you then justify that Yap is indeed un-notable? You cannot prove it, and move on to mention about not using "Bold" statements. What kind of logic is that? Clear unnecessary nitpicking to the extent of being unreasonable. To add on, anyone with some common sense can tell you that this award (YGL) itself is a recognition of his contributions obviously. Similarly, you seem to be arguing for the same points without providing much evidence and in fact, distort the facts to some extent (although you use the used the word "mistakenly"). In my opinion, the contributor Wikiwak has done a good job in writing about the subject. And there is nothing done to help him improve the article but just plain bombardment. Finally, why do you need to explain that an administrator will close the discussion and so on? Are you implicitly threatening the contributor or using assertion to prove your point? Anyway, I am a member of the public - A free person who doesn't use a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.139.7 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards

• (1) Yes, the National University of Singapore has a Wikipedia article; however, there is no article for its awards. Yap was one of nine individuals receiving an award in 2012 in the "Distinguished Leadership Category" (not counting the merit award.) That award is not notable (insufficient sources if nothing else). No claim of significance is stated. There is no coverage of Yap. The source is a list. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which also reduces its impact on notability.
• (2) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Young Global Leaders organization; however, it does not have an article on any award nor on the Forum of Young Global Leaders which is what Yap belongs to (six year tenure), along more than 900 other individuals, with more than 150 chosen each year. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources. In many cases such bios are prepared by the subject. If we assume good faith without other evidence, World Economic Forum (WEF) may error-check such bios, in which cases they may be used for verification purposes.
• (3) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the World Cities Summit (WCS) organization; however, it does not have an article on the Young Leader program. In fact the Wikipedia article does not even mention the young leaders program. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which again reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources. In many cases such bios are prepared by the subject. If we assume good faith without other evidence, World Economic Forum (WEF) may error-check such bios, in which cases they may be used for verification purposes. As the biography at WEF and WCS are substantially the same, the likelyhood that they are subject produced increases.
• (4) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on Rotary International; however, it does not have an article on the Peace Fellowships, although they are discussed in a paragraph. Up to 100 Rotary Peace Fellows are selected annually; it is not a significant award awarded to one person. It is more in the nature of a scholarship. The source cited was the bio at World Economic Forum (WEF), a source with the infirmaties discussed above. There appears to have been no secondary coverage of thw fellowship in independent reliable sources. It is mentioned in passing in some sources, but even in non-independent Rotary sources I found only a list or passing mention such as here.
• (5) Yes, the Wikipedia has an article on the Center for Strategic and International Studies organization; however, it does not have an article on the fellowship program. In fact the Wikipedia article does not even mention the International Fellowship program, except to say that "fellows" (unidentified) assist staff. It is not a significant award awarded to one person. Yes, the cited source contains a brief biography. As the originating organization it may be considered a primary source, and not secondary, which again reduces its impact on notability. As a related organization, such coverage usually does not contribute toward the concept of coverage in independent reliable sources.

In summation, Yap has received no significant awards under Wikipedia notability guidelines.

--Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to JamesWatson: Thank you for pointing those out. Those were in reference to information on business this subject is in to give context. I will delete those if they infringe on wikipedia guidelines. On point two, by your logic, the subject must be the publication title or an award itself? It seems that you have risen the stakes of what notability refers to. To say that an editor or a recipient of an award of a notable publication/award is not notable enough seems to be a stretch. I conclude that to you, "Young Global Leaders" are not notable (which leaves a lot of subject pages in question of deletion.) See List of Young Global Leaders. The Young Global Leader page does not seem to be in any contention and is a widely accepted fact by the wikipedia community. Being left handed is not notable, though there are notable people who are left handed. Left-handed does not inherently confer notability. Being a Young Global Leader is notable because it inherently confers notability, and those who are recognised under this category are therefore notable. (Notable individuals in their fields and region are recognised and identified by YGL). Apologies for putting the "keep" note. I thought it was for each argument for keeping. Thanks for pointing that out and for your comments.

Concluding Remarks: Perhaps an admin reply on Wiki's stand on whether Young Global Leaders and similar titles, as well as the role of individuals in notable organisations confer notability will help to resolve this issue. (In this case it seems that, COO, editor, board of directors, award holder is not sufficiently notable). Wikiwak991 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)