Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wong

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genb2004 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was DELETE. Madchester 16:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Wong

[edit]

Possible vanity, non notable anyway. --Missmarple 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable because David Wong is both an attorney and classical pianist. David Wong is like a Condoleezza Rice -- who is also a concert pianist in addition to being the current Secretary of State. That's notable. It also seems that if this article is deleted, the article on Rosa Parks should also be deleted, because both Rosa Parks and David Wong object to racial discrimination and took strong personal stands against it. They are historical figures. 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • My problem is not just the vanity article itself, but the disengenuous attempt to "save" the page with convoluted, illogical statements like those above. Condoleezza Rice is notable purely as the Secretary of State of the United States, not as a pianist. David Wong holds which position in the U.S. government? Didn't think so. What's irritating is that such illogic is so insipid, yet the writer's audacity for writing it is even more so. Also, the claim that "if this article is deleted, then the article on Rosa Parks should also be deleted" could only logically be based on the premise that David Wong is more important than Rosa Parks...not only is this extreme vanity, but David Wong or a supporter deliberately chose a "racial icon", and the implication that he is at least as important as Rosa Parks because he "took a strong stand against discrimination" suggests that, in fact, Wong manufactured the discrimination claim to gain attention. I'm just sorry that weaker people are unable to stand up to these type of insidious attacks...doing evil in the pretext of doing good.Ryoung122 07:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it is logical to assume David Wong thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks. Logically, it is possible that they are not mutually orthogonal. In any event, there is a case at the Dept. of Education San Francisco Office that verifies there is indeed a complaint which existed prior to the deletion of this article. Therefore, I don't think the discrimination complaint was manufactured just to draw attention to himself in order to save the article. I agree with Ryoung's comments below that we shouldn't be attacking those who are trying to save this article, but rather look at the reasoning, content of what everyone is saying, including those who want this article deleted. Jamesw9 18:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this guy thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks and Condoleezza Rice, then clearly he has a "God complex." Maybe this has driven him to success in two fields, but one has to wonder if the discrimination claim was an attempt to gain attention for himself (and thus may have never happened). Also, it's not notable that Person X graduated from school and thanked his teachers.Ryoung122 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think Wong thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks or Condoleezza Rice, but the argument is that he is notable because he is both an attorney and a distinguished classical pianist, and that would be different from allowing an article about a person who likes golf, fishing, and what have you. I do wonder about the discrimination claim though because I don't believe racial discrimination still occurs. Can anyone follow up with the Department of Education to verify there was an actual complaint filed and can we have more facts? Jamesw9 21:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course racial discrimination still occurs, but that doesn't make Wong notable as a musician, nor does being discriminated against, by itself, make someone a historical figure. TECannon 06:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable as a musician with next concert being in 2008. Allmusic.com has an article on a David Wong but that artist is a vocalist. Has played the occasional concert see [1] but doesn't seem to meet WP:music. Started practising as an attorney last year so not notable in that field either. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Clearly a vanity page. Great quote from page: "The controversy surrounding Mr. Wong is his age. He is 30, but looks 16."Dxco 06:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that David Wong's next concert is in 2008. If you do a google search he is also playing in a concert this Sunday in Berkeley, CA. He meets WP:music because he went on an international concert tour in Germany in 1999.

But Nakamatsu, Lang Lang, and Yundi Li are actually more notable, even if they didn't manage to make the stock price triple at the company where they temped. Bwithh 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The three pianists you have mentioned have absolutely nothing in common with David Wong except the fact that they're all Asian. Jon Nakamatsu and Yundi Li have both won a very important piano competition and Lang Lang has released several CDs, DVDs, is currently touring around the world etc. So I can't agree with your comment at all, it's just not relevant. --Missmarple 13:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save I don't see any mention of David Wong's age in the article. Therefore, the other recommendations for deletion seem to be based upon prior recommendations of deletion so those recommendations have to be discarded given that the prior recommendation rested on the fact there was a mention about Wong's age and now there is no mention.(preceding unsigned comment by 67.188.171.144 (talk · contribs) 14:06, 28 October 2005)
    • Comment. Looking through the history of this page, I notice that 67.188.171.144, who voted for 'save' above, had first added their comment as a continuation of HBgoodrich's comment. If you are the same person as HBgoodrich, please do not vote twice. On a possibly related note, it's worth mentioning that both HBgoodrich and [[User::Genb2004|Genb2004]] had no contributions, prior to casting their votes for 'save'. Something feels fishy. --Peruvianllama 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Meets criteria for notable in WP:music. It's possible 67.188.171.144 realized he shouldn't modify HBGoodrich's comments. On the other hand, Peruvianllama's concern should be given some consideration. 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 24.4.134.33 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete Who is David Wong anyway? I'm so tired of him. Jimboy0 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Jimboy0 doesn't seem to have any contributions, prior to casting his vote for 'delete'. Using Preuvianllama's logic, if a discount factor is applied to Genb2004 and HBgoodrich, we should also disregard Jimboy0. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.4.134.33 (talk · contribs))
    • Comment. User 24.4.134.33 doesn't show any contributions other than the David Wong vote to save. This appears to be an organized attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia. So now we have three different unveried "save" votes from users without an ID and no evidence of existence before the David Wong deletion controversy.
    • Comment. Under the previous commentator's logic, we should also disregard Ryoung122. This appears to be an an organized attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia in both directions. It's probably best to look at the SUBSTANCE of what everyone is saying before we decide to delete or keep. Jamesw9 21:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT User Jamew9 is USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS. NOTE THAT I ONLY VOTED ONCE, NOT TWICE. ALSO, I CLEARLY HAD AN ID MONTHS AGO, NOT STARTING THE SAME DAY THE ATTEMPT TO "SAVE" OR "DELETE" THE ARTICLE STARTED. THUS, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT I TRIED TO VOTE-RIG ANYTHING, WHILE THERE'S CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED VOTE-RIGGING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. ALSO OBSCENE IS THAT ATTEMPTS TO SAVE THE ARTICLE HAVE AMOUNTED TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT, RATHER THAN DEBATING THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF. THAT ALONE IS ENOUGH TO RAISE RED FLAGS.Ryoung122 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should disregard Ryoung122 because he is yelling at us with capital letters. Jamesw9 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading this again, I noticed that not only did Jamesw9 post several messages (not in itself a problem, but they all tried to use illogical persuasion, such as "why are you still not convinced" (a red herring gives no reason to save) and "looks like vote-rigging in both directions". But check again, we find that user Jamesw9 had no verifiable ID before the voting began, whereas my ID went back to at least Feb 2005. Hmmm.....so people, think for yourselves, I think I've said enough. If that's not enough to expose a fraudulent attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia to save a vanity article, then fool you twice, shame on you.Ryoung122 07:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jimboy0 is proof of vote-rigging in both directions. I don't see any history for him. And even if you've got a history, I don't think it matters. You could be 10 or 1000 years old, it's the substance or merit of what you say that counts. Jamesw9 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it could use some editing to remove unverified attack content CarbonCopy 19:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, delete posthaste. However, if he indeed did a national tour of Germany (and not just a few places), that would qualify him under WP:NMG #2. It must be noted that most of the reviews on Amazon read like sockpuppets, or friends and family or something. He's probably a good pianist and a nice person, but still not that notable. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable vanity case. --Madchester 00:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. Trollderella 00:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is possibly the most disturbing case of seriously self-regarding vanity bio posting I've seen. The Amazon reviews for this guy's CD are full of obvious sock puppet reviews (all 5 star and often weirdly fawning in a slightly extreme way, except a few one star reviews from people who think/know something weird is going on). There also seems to be an attempt at sockpuppetry in influencing this review. Besides that, I also find the claims for notability completely unconvincing, and definitely not worthy of wikipedia. If somehow it is decided the article is kept, the bio should be cut down drastically, to one or two lines Bwithh 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why do you find the claims for notability unconvincing? According to the guidelines set out by Wikipedia, Wong meets them. His international tour in Germany and feature in Keyboard Musician. Jamesw9 02:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that being an attorney and a pianist is a cause for notability. Typically one would need to be wealthy in order to be either. Therefore one might readily be able to aquire the training for the other. En plus, would someone be notable if they were both a Teacher and Guitar player? I think not. There appears nothing in this article to indicate encyclopedic merit. Marcus22 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The barrier to entry to become an attorney and a classical pianist is a lot greater than guitar playing and teaching. Therefore these two comparisons are not equivalent. Jamesw9 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marcus22 has a good argument that teachers and guitarists are common. If the guitarist wins a state-wide competition, then the common argument is defeated or if the teacher wins a state-wide competition for teaching could also defeat the argument too. If david won a state wide piano competition then that might defeat the common argument. Asian Pacific Islanders represented 49% of San Francisco's school system in 2005, surely Marcus22, ryoung122, TECcannon, and MissMarple can easily name some meritorious Asian replacements for David because their arguments built on top of a lack of novelty and an abundance of substitutes? They should simply name a few specific names and justify why those replacements subsume David's published contribution to society. I've been a substitute teacher before and I don't feel that being a teacher in any way diminishes the something else just because I know a lot of people teach.
The danger I see in enforcing the highest standard of notability is that it is a blunt censorship instrument that can be used to censor the early references to any new publication regardless of merit, delete young artists, and delete new referenced publications are starting to become notable. Arguably Time Magazine, Newsweek, and tabloid shows like Inside Edition, provide timely content at the expense of enforcing a looser checking standard than a refereed journal such as Nature or JAMA. I do not think we need to delete everything Matt Drudge blogged before Monica-gate because anyone could make the argument he was less notable when I first learned of it. The word blogged seemed like a good candidate for deletion because that was not a very notable word to me when I first learned it. I think notability rises and falls too quickly for an encyclopedia to track. If an author dies, does he become less worthy of a historical record? I think relying upon the references of publicized works is a much better standard. If the author, artist, comprose, or inventor has any published works that might have artistic, culturally, or other redeeming social value, I say let the readers decide for themselves.
The alternative is to say that people like 'ryoung122' will improve my Wikipedia searches because 'ryoung122' can point to a more relevant artist to my search criteria in Wikipedia. If I am searching for a list of Hispanic civil rights figures who have persevered, I certainly don't need ryoung122 limiting my search to Rosa Parks when I'm looking for a less frequently cited person like Cesar Chavez. If I am searching for a recent list of Asian civil rights figures fighting the good fight, I am not expecting Missmarple, ryoung122, or TECcannon to offer better credentials or point to bigger folk heroes in the Asian American community. I personally believe David Wong was a short yellow musician being oppressed by elite establishment big shots who denied him the opportunity to rent a pearly white concert hall. Instead of suffering in silence like many angry Asian men, I almost admire that he persevered and became an attorney instead of a street performing musician with a picket sign. If David Wong is really not that notable, then why is it so important that his work needs to be censored in its entirety for lack of obscenity. I say if the argument is vanity then I recommend deleting any vain superlative adjective and allow the remnant truth to set us free. I am convinced that his lifelong battle with censorship is notable not because of his published works but on the basis of these public requests to delete him instead of limiting the discussion to what ought to be censored. Any request to delete in entirety without citing a search for a more meritorious replacement should be scrutinized as ignorant. If someone can name a more prominent Asian pianist and lawyer that subsumes all of David's contribution to society, I think we can replace David with another name but who are these shadowy figures who argue David should be replaced with a black hole? I challenge them to replace David on the merits and publish their full names and cities where they reside. I personally feel our society might be better off if we encouraged people to toil as patiently as David has behind the scenes to overcome a lifelong battle with censorship instead having to selectively celebrate the notoriety of the most visible act of civil disobedience. (preceding unsigned comment by 67.174.226.42 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Wow, what a passionate and insightful argument. Yet, I still can't change my mind and still vote delete. did you write some of the reviews on Amazon.com too? Bwithh 04:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT. First, in regards to the above "impassioned plea." If you look at the vanity page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page we see Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met, might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist. The popular radio humorist, Garrison Keillor has a theory that "everyone has a story to tell", and this may very well be true. Still, Wikipedia is not meant to be the place where all stories get told. That you know so much about David Wong strongly suggests you are related to him, a friend, or perhaps David himself. As it says from the vanity page, there should be a proof of neutral interest. Writing articles about oneself or someone you know is NOT NEUTRAL INTEREST. As you said, "personally believe..." You're taking it personally, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Such a tactic sets off the VANITY alarms. Even your comment about Cesar Chavez is offensive. Others chose to include Cesar, not Cesar himself or just a bunch of friends. Further, Cesar's work made a real-life difference for millions of hugely disadvantagely minorities working in the fields. David Wong's life of piano-playing already bespeaks a life of privilege, such as that any comparison to working in the fields is ludicrous. Millions of Americans have not even had the opportunity of piano lessons, yet we see complaints because David feels he is not being treated fairly. In actually, it appears that David is not treating others fairly, insisting on special privileged that others have not had. Such a statement as "I am convinced that his lifelong battle with censorship is notable not because of his published works but on the basis of these public requests to delete him instead of limiting the discussion to what ought to be censored" is a circular argument: you are saying that David Wong's article should not be deleted, because others are trying to delete it. Despite your very good grammar, what is scary is your total lack of perspective or understanding of logic. Or, maybe you undestand logic very well, but hope enough people perusing the message board will be deceived by your fallacies...in which case, that makes the statements all the worse, if the motive is to deceive.
Second, the above user 67.174.226.42, instead of making arguments about David Wong, commits other clever fallacies, such as if we delete David Wong, then we should replace him with another Asian-American. First, I don't believe in quotas...quotas are inherently racist. (And if you can only be inspired by other Asian-Americans, that's racist, too). David Wong comes from a background of privilege. Chinese-Americans have a standard of living, education, and even life expectancy that exceeds that of the average American, even white Americans. To claim that David Wong is another "Rosa Parks" really means the poster has issues of resent toward African-Americans, feeling that perhaps African-Americans are getting "special treatment, so we should too." (Did David Wong ever have to sit at the back of the bus? Did Rosa Parks promote herself, or did others promote her?) Well, it doesn't take much looking at the damage from Hurricane Katrina to see the difference. Perhaps you need to go on a community service tour of the US South, to gain some perspective from your ethno-centric little world.
But if I'm wrong and David Wong really is such a great "human rights activist," why not cite newspaper stories instead of committing non sequiturs.
As for me, I have known Chinese Christians all my life, yet the ones I know are not self-absorbed ego-maniacs,who put their self-promotion ahead of all else. If David Wong is deleted and he later acquires the stature of a star pianist, don't you think someone will notice and put him back on Wikipedia? The true measure of greatness is not what one thinks of oneself, but what others think of them. This is even more so for celebrities. And it's not just David Wong: to avoid the hype machine, I don't buy any popular music CD until I first hear the song and like it. Then I follow up to find out who sings the song, to make sure I'm not being brainwashed into buying the latest Ashlee Simpson junk.
The bottom line for me, however, is that not only is David Wong not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, the campaign to add him to Wikipedia (and Amazon.com, for that matter) smacks of prickish self-absorption, misusing Wikipedia to advertise (to sell the CD and promote David Wong's attorney practice). Further, the Wong promoter's disdain of African-Americans smacks of racial arrogance.Ryoung122 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's contrast David Wong with another "Chinese rights activist":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Wu
Let's see...Harry Wu spent 19 years in jail; David Wong allegedly was denied the use of a concert hall. Which would you rather go through?Ryoung122 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Ryoung122. I did a comprehensive search of attorney pianists and I couldn't find any. I tried to find a Caucasian, Asian, Black, etc. Let's show the people on this list who want to save David Wong that he is a dime a dozen. Can anyone help me? If there is any way to delete David Wong, let's do it. I'm sick of hearing about him. I don't care if he meets WP:Music. I am not Ryoung122's sock puppet. There are articles in the Sing Tao Daily about David Wong's human rights fund raising activities but you can't trust it because the editorial standards are not as high as the New York Times. Jimboy0 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jimboy0 says: "If there is any way to delete David Wong, let's do it. I'm sick of hearing about him. I don't care if he meets WP:Music."
A very troubling attitude. CarbonCopy 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Pianist-Attorneys I did a search on google for attorney pianist and lawyer pianist, and lawyer + talent as a pianist actually seems to be a not uncommon combination - e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Robert Miller + many more. That was based on a 10 min scan of the results. Didn't find any Asians though. perhaps its a conspiracy. Bwithh 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment from the nominator. It seems to me that some people are voting 'keep' because of some kind of racial reasons or something. It's not that there are no articles about Asian pianists (if we think of Wong's case, I don't know about other professions) - we have articles about Mei-Ting Sun, Yundi Li, Lang Lang, Jon Nakamatsu etc. just because they have achieved something important in their careers. If (or when) David Wong achieves something similar to them, he will have his article, too. But right now, he just doesn't deserve it! --Missmarple 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the David Wong page meets the criteria for Vanity because there are now no hyperlinks to his piano or law web site. My apologies to 8withh if she felt I was calling her racist. I don't think that was the implication, but still, if she felt that way, let's apologize and move on. It is fishy to me that we have people attacking other people rather than debating the merits or demerits of the page. Ryoung122 negativity is equally troubling, as well as the super passion of the people who want to save the page. Ryoung122 and Bwithh might be the same person, and should count as one. Either David Wong is notable and meets the criteria for WP:Music or he doesn't. If the WP:Music criteria is wrong, we need to change it and evaluate ALL articles about musicians on the new criteria, and delete all musicians who don't fit, including David Wong. Genb2004 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually if you read WP:MUSIC carefully, it indicates that it's a general set of guidelines, not a hard set of rules. Editors and contributors to Wikipedia follow these guidelines with discretion, making exceptions where they may be needed. --Madchester 16:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I think the admin referees are welcome to review undisclosed conflicts of interest that marcus22, ryoung122 and Bwithh neglected to disclose regarding their past, present, and future interests in other musician reputations or attorney reputations or that of other articles.

If litmus tests like the presence of any fallacy or contradiction can be used to delete content, we would either have to admit a lack of fairness by simply deleting the article about David or practice consistency by deleting many other "accepted" articles that possess the same issues as the article about David. marcus22, ryoung122, and Bwithh are conveniently silent about identifying sock puppet or comments in their favor that simply do not pass their own litmus tests.

I think if the "vanity" litmus test became the wildcard rule, we would not need a logical exception to review Hans Boepple who is chairing a department with some absolutely amazing credentials that scream vanity to any tenure reviewer at any university in the US. If David lacked a JD and was practicing law, I think someone would have reported vanity on that by now. I welcome ryoung122, marcus22, and Bwithh want to explain what happens when I apply their own vanity test to the article about Mr. Boepple, I will. I arrive at the same overreaching decision--DELETE. There seems to be a lack of balance, neutrality, and objectivity in the standards they are proposing. I want anyone to justify the declaring the position of a music chair with the "gravity" of his academic credentials. I hope has a good justification for participating in any tenure granting decisions and what kinds of credentials to the candidates have versus the reviewer or those might seem vain too.

I think if the information about David is available elsewhere then we can safely assume the censors want to single out this rated G article for other reasons. Even by pre-1991 noncommercial internet ettiquette, I do not see sponsorship branding, prices posted, binding offers to sell, credit card solicitations, no mention of his marital status, or dates of availability. The article appears to be factual, balanced, and fair which is a standard of objectivity that seems to exceed many other articles I have read. It appears the delete camp has failed so far in its bid to nominate a substitute for David thus the need to go ad hominem. There is a giant gap between proving that the article expresses David in a factually favorable light due versus proving a clear and present danger and national security harm by suppressing article about David. I fail to see any non-circular foundational argument for those wanting deletion given any established criteria of prior restraint for deleting this article now or pre-1991. At least not a long convoluted criteria that would save Mr. Boepple's article.

Toyotaboy ruled in favor of David because the advocates of delete have failed to bring arguments rising to the standards of prior restraint or substitution. Every argument submitted so far for delete can be used to go after established articles.

67.174.226.42 16:39, 1 November 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Wong&oldid=1137771735"