Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave 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 Speedy keep as subject is clearly notable. Non-admin closure. Sefringle^Talk 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wong

not notable, vanity Genb2004 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:BIO, independent sources are imho available and mentioned in the article. --Oxymoron⁸³ 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I see at least two sources about him that look independent; if you think deletion is in order, you should be explaining why these do not satisfy WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable and has a couple of decent sources. From the nominator's talk page, there appear to have been some prior issues with this article. --Kateshort forbob 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: well spotted -- but it was another article about another person. Nominator unsuccessfully recreated and defended deleted article about David Wong, American attorney and classical pianist. Since then he has nominated David Wong Louie at AFD with the same unsupported rationale, and now Dave Wong. Seems to use Jamesw9, Jimboy0, Hummer190 and HBgoodrich as sockpuppets, as they have joined in the same editor's AFD nominations and have no other edits.

To address the claims of this nomination: 500,000 sales for one album is notable. As for vanity, there is no evidence that this article has been maintained by persons connected with the singer - I wikified the article, but am certainly not connected other than by still enjoying this singer's old hits - otherwise we would have been able to procure a free image! Click on the Chinese Wikipedia link zh:王傑 (歌手) to see his extensive discography. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Modern Chinese music-related deletions. Fayenatic (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a notable figure in Taiwan. 500 000 copies for that area is significant--JForget 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's with a major record label. And as far I know with the music notability thing, if you're with a major label, your article stays. EEG is a notable label, as far as I'm concerned. Pandacomics 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am reluctant to block the nom for disruption until the afd is finished, just in case he has anything to say. DGG (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (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.