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)

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]
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]


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]
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]


  • 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.
Category