Deletion of Yap Kwong Weng (2nd nomination)

Comment: After sifting through all of the promotional language it seems the article fails . A LinkedIn account would be a better forum for most of this information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARD)

Comment: 1) no claim to notability (2) lack of ''significant'' substantive coverage. Fails , fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLPNOTE)