Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mun Charn Wong


 * 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 was   no consensus. More heat than light was generated in this debate, and there's no agreement on his notability. Can I remind everyone to stay civil, and that there is no need to respond to all those who disagree with you, especially at such length. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mun Charn Wong

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject of article does not meet WP:NN per WP:BIO or WP:MILMOS, most of article is about Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. 3 of five references are regarding Wah Kau Kong and not of the subject of the article, and the other two are obituaries, thus falling under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Publication references is to Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. Book references to Americans first: Chinese Americans and the Second World War by Kevin Scott Wong has 10 mentions of the subject of the article, 5 of which are references, and the other 5 are not in depth regarding the subject of the article. Furthermore in the book ''Football! Navy! War!: How Military Lend-Lease Players Saved the College Game ...'' By Wilbur D. Jones there is only 2 references to the subject, one is a reference, the other only mentions the subject in passing. Given that the the two of the three references that are primarily about the subject are obituaries, the subject of the article (even with his honorable service which is commendable) does not meet WP:NN in my humble opinion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is not about Mun Charn Wong at all. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was when I last looked at it. His notability lies in being one of 12 legends in Transamerica Insurance; arguably,  life insurance sales people are no less notable than any other occupation where national recognition, and there are some who have made a fortune from their commissions.  I'll keep an open mind on arguments for and against the article. Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is much more about Wah Kau Kong. And basing the notability of Mr. Wong on his success as a life insurance salesman is dubious at best. National recognition by his employer is not the same as national recognition by the media. DarkAudit (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article is about Mun Charn Wong. I agree the original editor did a poor job of it, but I am attempting to clean it up.  Wong was a notable businessman from Hawaii and has been published in the field.  His accomplishments have also been recognized by secondary sources, including books and newspaper articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is directed towards Mandsford. Since there is not specific notes on notability regarding business people, the subject of the article is subject to meeting Notability via WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO.  So far there is no mention of the subject being nominated or awarded a "Notable Award".  Therefore, the subject wold be notable via being the primary subject of indepth coverage.  So far as of this posting, he is the primary subject of three indepth coverage references, two are obituaries and one is noted in my comment below, as it was added after the AFD began. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Viriditas has added the reference, the first non-obituary reference where the subject of the article is the primary subject. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Viriditas has added the reference, the subject of the article is mentioned once, and only in passing. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To expand upon my initial reason for nominating the article for deletion, in the most recent edit summary the above listed reference was used to show how the subject of the article introduced his grandson to a notable musician. However, knowing a notable person, or being related to a notable person does not make that person notable themselves. See WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject meets notability guidelines and is covered by at least a dozen sources.  Subject was one of the first Chinese-Americans from Hawaii to serve in the Air Force, and at least two books mention his WWII career including his football skills as a quarterback.  He was interviewed by a historian at Williams College for a book published by Harvard University Press, and a military historian for material published by McFarland. Subject received a select, prestigious business award from the Transamerica Corporation which was covered by Pacific Business News and two obituaries, one in the The Honolulu Advertiser and the other in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.  Subject published an article in the magazine Insurance Sales, appears in at least two video productions (one made for TV), had his work recognized by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka on the Senate floor, served as the president of various Chinese-American organizations and on the board of notable service organizations, and established a scholarship in Aerospace Studies at the University of Hawaii.  More sources can be found offline in local Hawaii-based newspaper indexes and foreign-language sources. (For example, I just found a detailed biographical entry for Wong in Men and Women of Hawaii; A Biographical Dictionary of Noteworthy Men and Women of Hawaii, which was published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 1972.  I am currently scheduled to review several old indexes from that paper and another Hawaii-based paper that are supposed to contain articles about him.  The problem is that none of these are online.) Article was previously deleted and restored in deletion review in 2006.  Article on  Wah Kau Kong was split out of this article several days after DRV, not before.  In response to the prod and AfD from an article alert, I have expanded the article from 3,119 bytes to 11,849 bytes and I believe more sources can be found to expand it further. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on atheltic career, subject does not meet notability requirement set forth by WP:ATH. The award which the subject was awarded by their employer is not a "notable award" as per WP:ANYBIO.  The associations whom the subject was the President of do not appear to be notable per WP:ORG. After the commendable improvement, the subject is the primary subject of 2 obituaries, one article, and one videorecording by his own organization.
 * It could be argued that the subject meets notability per the number of references currently provided, in so much that that in being secondary or minor subjects in the present number of referenced sources should meet the second part of the first bullet point of WP:BIO. It could also be argued due to the number of references the subject meets notability per WP:GNG.
 * That being said the subject does not appear to meet notability of "Significant coverage" bullet point of WP:GNG, and multiple references of the subject where the subject is not the primary subject of the reference may not garuntee that the subject is notable as stated in WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've already said your part several times; Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine? Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see, I am not stopping you from making your opinion known regarding the article. As with other AFDs, other users are allowed to comment on other users rational as to why they believe an article should be deleted, kept, moved, merged, etc. My comments have been only about the article, and have been civil, and are not directed to you the editor, but rather the rational that you are using in your comment.
 * I have not attacked you as an editor, and I respectfully request that you focus your comments to the rational used in the afd process, as you yourself are permitted to rebut any rationals which you believe are not keeping with the policies and guidelines used to support an action regarding an article.
 * Please stop directing comments towards me, the user, as I believe that your most recent comment/response is a form of harassment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about you in my "keep" vote at all, and there's no reason for you to keep responding to my vote as you've already made your very strong beliefs about this article known several times. The fact is, the man meets the notability requirements as a whole.  Nobody claimed he was a professional athlete, the article clearly claims he played football in the Air Force and was an amateur golfer.  However, these things have been covered by reliable sources.  You seem to be confused by this.  As for the business award given by Transamerica, it is a notable business award and was given to less than a dozen people in the entire history of the company and was recognized by at least three newspaper sources.  The fact is, Wong has received significant coverage in the references provided, and there are more in Hawaii-based newspaper indexes, and in at least one foreign-language source. Frankly, none of your rationale holds.  You claim that this article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but that doesn't make any sense at all, so I can only assume you misunderstand what NOTMEMORIAL means.  The fact is, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and the notability criterion has been satisfied.  The Wah Kau Kong material was taken out of this article after the last deletion, so that it could be expanded, not so that both articles could be merged, again. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The harassment I am refering to is the statement:Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine?
 * This comment is directed to me the user, and not towards the discussion, and falls under the following:(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts
 * As for the award from his employer, the award itself is not notable as it has not meet notability itself, to warrant an article.
 * As for NOTMEMORIAL, at the beginning, as the article had previously been written, of the deletion process (PROD) the article's references supported that line of opinion, thus why I included it.
 * As for the number of references in secondary and tertiary reliable sources, I have already commented on those per my comments on the subject's notability per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The harassment appears to be coming from you, not me. I have not responded to any of your comments on this page - it is you who keeps responding to me, and no response from you is required.  This is commonly referred to as harassing an editor and should stop.  I know your position, and I do not need to be repeatedly informed of it.  I find your nomination for deletion to be in error, as a misunderstanding of basic policy and guidelines.  The fact that an article on the Transamerica Corporation Award does not exist does not imply in any way that the subject is not-notable.  It merely hasn't been written.  If your nomination criteria has changed, then you should be mature enough to say so.  I see no retraction from you above.  As for notability, the subject has been recognized for his contributions to society by his community, his workplace, historians and academics, his U.S. Senator, and multiple news outlets.  He has appeared in various videos and created a scholarship at the University.  His notability as one of the first Chinese-American people from Hawaii to join the Air Force makes his WWII veteran status notable, and his football and golfing has also been recognized.  As the primary researcher responsible for bringing the attention of Wah Kau Kong to the public, his work has been credited in reliable sources.  He is also a notable life insurance executive who was recognized by the life insurance community as a leader in his field, and this was covered by Pacific Business News, a standard business publication.  Additionally, he has published an article about life insurance (which was considered notable enough to be included in a published survey of important marketing literature).  He has also appeared in a television production and conference video that is listed in WorldCat. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The addition of the reference to the 1990 Pacific Business News article establishes notability as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Wong completed 1989 as "the top insurance agent worldwide in the entire family of Transamerica Life companies", and Transamerica is one of the largest insurance companies in the world.  It has 1.5 trillion dollars worth of life insurance policies alone, as well as assets of more than 100 billion.  Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

(outdent) You are directly accusing me of WIKILAWERING and GAMING by secret collusion with another editor. Such allegations are not acceptable, stop making unsubstantiated accusations or make a report for investigation using the correct WP:ANI process.—Ash (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - if notability boils down to "Wong's photo occupies the No. 1 position in Transamerica's gallery of fame in the Los Angeles headquarters of Transamerica Occidental Life" and some tangential references in other fields then this seems a weak basis for a biography (or memorial) article. A mention on the Transamerica Corporation might be viable, or the creation of an "Transamerica Occidental Life" page if that company is so important (it does not currently exist). I originally came to the article to provide a third opinion but I was aggressively rejected by Viriditas, which seems to be the pattern here too. —Ash (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that you originally might have had a different opinion about the merits of the article, but that you changed it because someone made you angry, then that suggests to me that the argument between Viriditas and RightCow has gone beyond irritating and on to a major distraction. For all the chatter that's gone on so far, there have been only five people who have said "keep" or "delete".  The discussion is about a man named "Mun Charn Wong", and, frankly, nobody cares what any editor thinks about any other editor.  Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinions, that's not what I said and it's not what I meant. I have struck my superfluous comment however, as I don't wish for you to misinterpret any further.—Ash (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is about as perfect an illustration as one could hope for regarding the concept that "successful" and "notable" are not always the same thing. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:BIO - significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Multiple obituaries in serious newspapers qualify. Ray  Talk 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the coverage which you mention, the subject of the article is not the primary subject of the reference, and are secondary or tertiary at best. Article's subject is the primary subject of two obituaries, one article in the Pacific Business News, and one film by an organization which he was the president of. If you were to remove the obituaries and the video from his organization, he's only the primary subject in one reliable source reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would anybody discount obituaries? They're quite often the major source for otherwise little-known details about the lives of moderately prominent people. Ray  Talk 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Obituaries are opinion pieces. Normally one authoritative obit is sufficient in an article and any facts it mentions (apart, possibly, from circumstances of death) are better supported by sources published at the time. Obituaries often often cast the subject in a more positive light than independent sources published before death occurs. Consequently articles heavily reliant on obituaries for facts may suffer from POV issues. I recall this being discussed more generally and extensively elsewhere, though I have not tracked down that discussion yet.—Ash (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces? This is the first I've heard of that. I can certainly buy that obituaries are likely to be more positive than articles focusing on particular controversies in which the subject is involved, but for notability purposes a solid profile in an obituary is the same as one in the news section. Or are you implying that a newspaper doesn't stand behind the facts in its obituary section?  Ray  Talk 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any article "may suffer from POV issues", even those that don't cite to an obituary for evidence of a fact. That doesn't make the source unreliable, nor is it anything that can't be addressed by editing.  Generally, a published source is always going to be more reliable than a webpage.  Mandsford (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am only providing information to you regarding what references have the subject as a primary source. I am not telling you that obituaries are not reliable sources in and of themselves.  However, if the majority of sources where the subject is the primary subject of the source are obituaries, than there is a possibility that the article may fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
 * In supporting keep you stated that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability per WP:BIO. Thus, I was pointing out to you that those references where the subject of the article is the primary subject of the references are limited, compared to the overall number of references used in the article, since the majority of references have the subject of the article as secondary or minor subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with using obituaries as sources. Please stop making stuff up.  Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, I have raised the general question of reliance on obituaries at RSN, the current recommendation is that it depends on the context of the publisher and if it is published as an "official" obituary or not.—Ash (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion strongly supports the use of the obituaries in this article and I recommend that the closer read the RSN thread in its entirety. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, I have raised the general question of reliance on obituaries to establish notability at WP:N/N. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You didn't like the answer you got at RSN so you keep asking the same question in different forums hoping for a different answer.  Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As two different people raised asked fairly different questions in two different forums, I do not believe the guidance of FORUMSHOPPING applies.—Ash (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, WP:WIKILAWYERING and posting questions in multiple forums in an attempt to change the outcome of an active AfD. To recap, obituaries are not treated as opinion pieces (I have no idea where you got that strange idea, but it's the first time I have ever heard it, and I've heard a lot of things) and questioning additional notability criteria that has already been met while also meeting the basic criteria in the first place, is a waste of time for everyone here.  You're both going to continue asking leading questions until you get the answer that you're looking for.  That's forum shopping. Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I ever mentioned nor made any claims about "gaming" or "collusion". You have a vivid imagination.  How about putting it to good use? Viriditas (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you strike your paragraph above and rephrase it so that you are not accusing me of collaborating on reposting questions in forums when in reality I have posted one question in one forum. As for your inability to understand what GAMING is, when you stated "in an attempt to change the outcome of an active AfD", that is a direct accusation of gaming. You are an experienced editor, so please don't pretend that this is all my "imagination".—Ash (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove whatever troubles you. I don't see it as "gaming" as that applies more to policy.  I see it as forum shopping, and I made that clear.  Forum shopping is a subset of canvassing.  Gaming is a subset of disruptive editing.  Is forum shopping disruptive?  I suppose it depends. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still accusing me of forum shopping in order to change the outcome of this AfD, a straightforward accusation of gaming. However as you appear so unconvinced by your own words that you recommend I edit your comments rather being prepared to raise your complaint using the ANI process, I suggest that is taken into account when closing this AfD. If you are not prepared to stand by your comments I don't think they need count for much here.—Ash (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I suggest your continued bad behavior here, including your original personal attack against me above and your admitted bias in coming here to make a vote be taken into account, and I suggest that your "delete" vote be stricken from the final tally. I also suggest that your forum shopping and misleading statements about other editors be taken into account, as well as the fact that your opinion on the use of obituaries on Wikipedia was refuted on RSN by multiple editors.  I also suggest that you refrain from turning AfD's into grudge matches against your perceived opponents and you limit yourself to article space for the foreseeable future. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas please be WP:CIVIL. Please do not direct your comments towards the editors contributions and not the editor themselves as you did here:

"You have a vivid imagination. How about putting it to good use?"

- Viriditas


 * RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A complement and a suggestion to help improve Wikipedia, no incivility, unlike the repeated attacks from Ash here. And RightCowLeftCoast, your attempt to redefine the reliable source guideline in order to discriminate against "local" newspapers is the silliest thing I have ever seen.  Your questions over at Notability/Noticeboard are simply forum shopping. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, now I'm being accused of making attacks - I guess you'll make up some rationale that you did not mean a "personal" attack so you'll not actually get your finger out and use the ANI process to report me? I would have thought that if you could in any way back up your claims of FORUMSHOPPING in order to change the outcome of an AFD (GAME), WIKILAWYERING and personal attack, then rather than wasting your time and everyone else's by taking an AFD off-topic, you should be using the correct wp:dispute resolution process. You have made six times more contributions to Wikipedia than I have, so I find your behaviour bizarre. I would have hoped an experienced editor would focus on the article and issues rather than randomly lash out at other editors. :( —Ash (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope that an administrator will come along soon to close the discussion.  It appears that there are seven opinions regarding whether the article should be kept or deleted, and the last one of those was registered back on November 25.  Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO I see nothing here that passes our standard. Eusebeus (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your reasoning? Your vote doesn't give any information.  From what I can tell, the article passes WP:ANYBIO with flying colors. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ash, WP:BIO. Crafty (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Votes made "per user" aren't given as much weight as votes with actual reasons. And Ash's rationale above was proven to be in error in at least three different instances so votes "per Ash" should be discarded.  To be specific, Ash argued that notability boiled down to the subject's life insurance award, when in fact  Wong's contributions include his research on Kong, and his publication on this subject is featured in A Bibliography of Chinese in Hawaii at the Hawaii State Library  and formed the basis for U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka's commemoration of Kong in the Congressional Record on December 1, 1994.  Wong's work is also highlighted in the video produced for KHON-TV called, "Profile of America's first Chinese-American fighter pilot, Wah Kau Kong."  Furthermore, Mun Charn Wong was responsible for establishing a scholarship in Kong's name at the University of Hawaii.  Both the prestigious life insurance award and his research and scholarship work meet the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not re-phrase my comment to suit yourself when people can read my original text on this page. Just because you made a comment and declared yourself right (or more correctly, declared other editors wrong) does not make it "proven". If you want to seriously propose my opinion here should be struck from the discussion then use the WP:ANI process and have them struck, otherwise grow up and stop hounding other editors and harranging people in this AfD.—Ash (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have consistently made false or erroneous statements about sources, articles, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, on Talk:Mun Charn Wong, you claimed a source wasn't available online after I said that it was, and you refused to revise your opinion.  In the process, you misinterpreted the policy on verification, even after I gave an explanation and links to the relevant policy.  You offered a third opinion based on your misunderstanding, and refused to change your position when you were corrected. Here, you claimed that Wong was only notable for one thing, when you were repeatedly given information on this AfD and on the talk and article page showing that he was notable for multiple reasons and met the criteria for ANYBIO.  You explicitly claimed that obituaries are opinion pieces, and after being shown that you were mistaken in your belief on RSN, you never once came back here to revise your opinion.  So, there is a pattern.  You make false claims and never go back to revise them or admit that you are wrong, and when you do go back, you either ignore the information or hedge your original statement. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You said all this before, you seem to be stuck in a loop. I don't believe notability has been addressed sufficiently and making uncivil accusations about me without being prepared to ask for an independent investigation is unlikely to suddenly change my opinion (or anyone else's).—Ash (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you admit that you were wrong and where did you correct your mistaken understanding or misinterpretations? Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't. Were you being sarcastic?—Ash (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand you. Are you still claiming that obituaries are opinion pieces, even after this discussion?  Please keep in mind, you are welcome to revise your previous opinion.  That shows you are capable of learning, and it reflects good judgment.  Stubbornly holding on to your ideas after they have been shown to be in error reflects poor judgment. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion was re-expressed above - "I don't believe notability has been addressed sufficiently" - being rude will not change my opinion. You appear to be being sarcastic as well as stuck in a loop. For the moment I'll take the advice given in WQA.—Ash (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that answers my question about your opinion on obituaries. Do you still believe obituaries are opinion pieces, yes or no?  You won't answer the question because it hinges on your vote, and since your vote was based on your misinterpretation of how sources are used, I'm curious if you think it should still count.  You say that notability has not been addressed sufficiently, but according to ANYBIO it has.  So you need to explain.Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your incivility will not change my opinion. I'll take the advice given in WQA—Ash (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be primarily a memorial and does not meet WP:BIO. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MEMORIAL has nothing to do with this article. Wong is listed in Men and Women of Hawaii; A Biographical Dictionary of Noteworthy Men and Women of Hawaii. (1972) as well as multiple reliable sources independent of the subject indicating his notability in both his work and his contributions to the community and research on Chinese-Americans in WWII. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How many more times are you going to repeat your opinions?—Ash (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How many more times are you going to make false claims about Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Show me how WP:MEMORIAL directly applies to this AfD. You can't, because it doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't actually thought about what WP:MEMORIAL says? If the article does not meet the notability requirements than all MEMORIAL says is that Wikipedia is not the place to memorize them. As for making false claims, as you appear to be on a campaign to make an endless list of random uncivil accusations against me without being prepared to follow any of the WP:DR processes then I guess that "false" has a special definition here, one that only exists in your head.—Ash (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you could not answer the question becuase WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to this article. MEMORIAL applies to articles created by editors "to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others."  Is there any evidence that anyone is doing this?  MEMORIAL is part of our general, site-wide proscription against using Wikipedia as web host, and when MEMORIAL applies, it is most commonly found in terms of unknown people who have not received coverage in reliable sources like Mun Charn Wong.  You are misinterpreting it to apply it to subjects who you feel are not notable, and that was never the intention of the policy.  MEMORIAL was solely intended to prevent editors from using Wikipedia as a personal web server.  It has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've had a good think about this and I believe his achievement is notable like that of Ben Feldman (insurance salesman). Selling insurance and being the best at it is a notable achievement that is mentioned in news stories and passed down in companies, Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. I have looked at the notability of the person in the article that you linked, one source is from a possible non-reliable source, and another source is from a blog.  I will be tagging this article appropriately for clean up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is another great example of the continued problematic editing by RightCowLeftCoast. The user cannot be bothered to do any actual work on Wikipedia invovling research or writing, so he tags Ben Feldman (insurance salesman) for "expansion", "missing references" and "notability" problems, as a precursor to his usual prodding and eventual deletion nominations.  I am curious about how many notable articles have been brought to deletion by RightCowLeftCoast in this way.  His questioning of the notability of Ben Feldman is unbelievable.  A quick three-second search on Google confirms that Feldman is widely considered the "world's greatest life insurance salesman".  I am concerned that RightCowLeftCoast misunderstands the purpose of tagging articles and consequently, the nature of the deletion process.  I am removing the notablity tag from Feldman as a result of this blatant misuse of tagging and processes. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete. I agree with the nominator that this article doesn't meet the standard set out in WP:BIO. Absent the obituaries, there are really no reliable references to articles that are focussed on the subject. Incidentally, the bickering during this discussion has been pathetic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The I must conclude that you voted without reading the article. He was the subject of a report in the Pacific Business News in 1990 sample (full article available in online databases, and I have it) detailing the prestigious life insurance award he received, and he was one of the subjects of military historian Wilbur D. Jones's book about WWII  published by McFarland, and his research on Kong is recognized by the State of Hawaii in several places (discussed above) and in the Congressional Record, and he established and maintained a  scholarship at the U of H which has been in place for decades.  Clearly meets the criteria of ANYBIO.  The further reading section also details his entry in a book on notable people from Hawaii, and I've found article abstracts in Hawaii newspaper indexes from the 1970s that I am in the process of getting access to.  Wong also played with celebrity golfers and won an amateur award with the help of Larry Ziegler in 1986 at San Francisco's Olympic Club.  This was covered by the San Francisco Chronicle.  He was clearly a notable member of his community and his contibutions have been recognized by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Should everyone who's name is mentioned in the congressional record be considered notable? If this were the case every individual who has spoken in front of congress would be notable, every person who has a post office named after them would be notable, and every person whom a congress person were to insert into the congressional record without actually speaking about them in committee or on the floor would be notable.
 * Does establishing a foundation mean that the individual has meet notability? I have not seen any indication that an individual is notable for that reason on WP:BIO.
 * WP:ANYBIO states that the individual has received a notable award, or has often been nominated for one. So far the subject of the article has been verified to have been awarded an award by their employer.  Although his employer is notable, that doesn't automatically confer notability to its awards to its employees.
 * As for Jones' book the subject is mentioned 5 times, that are not references, and each time the subject is mentioned it is not in a manner that provides significant coverage of the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The I must conclude that you voted without reading the article. —Viriditas Or, you could assume that I did and come to grips with the fact that users disagree with you. This is part of what I was referring to when I said the bickering in this discussion was pathetic. It's not necessary to respond to every user who disagrees with you with unfounded assumptions about what they have and have not done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough references altogether, with enough coverage, to satisfy the GNG. The argument against them is essentially that they are too specialized; two obits, but only from local papers, not the NYT. Prominence as a very major company's top salesman.  An article on him in Pacific Business News.  Various book references.  But these different sources have more than enough substantial coverage, and add up, showing that he was not just was well-known in one narrow area -e.g. it's not as if there was even more coverage, but all concentrated in Transamerica publications.John Z (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe the award from his employer constitutes a "notable award" to meet WP:ANYBIO, and even if it did I still believe the article should be delted per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Click23 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable and verifiable coverage of the subject, especially in terms of obituaries, meets the Wikipedia standard for notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.