Talk:Kenneth Huang

Format and quality, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
The article appears to have been co-opted by several accounts. There was a time when it resembled a decent encyclopedic entry, rather than a series of sentence long paragraphs, a sort of press release of achievements and honors. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually this is when the article was in a pretty decent state: . I suggest we return to this, and the several important pieces of post-2010 content can be added with proper references. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Content review?
I have semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks to stop the edit-warring by the dueling IPs and potential sock-pupettry by SPAs. Can some editors familiar with the area though review the article content and sources to make sure that the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article, and there are no WP:BLP-violations? Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been attempting to portray a more accurate representation of Kenneth Huang for some time now, based upon my own research. The conclusion is that this individual is not to be trusted. I have no personal vendetta against Mr. Huang, I just want to report the facts. However, every time I edit the link to reflect some of the negative information found, it is soon returned to its original format which paints a glowing portrait of Mr. Huang - I suspect the editor is Mr. Huang himself. I would appreciate the opportunity to add my carefully researched information to this Wikipedia page rather than having myself locked out of it if possible. Many thanks. 2 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.165.43 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Notability: Mr. Huang has been mentioned in several reliable sources so I think that he meets the notability criteria. I also think that the negative information (that has now been removed) should be included, but maybe it could be trimmed to be less than half the text per WP:DUE. Preferably it should be integrated instead of a separate section per Criticism. Sjö (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notability review, . And I agree with you that any sourced and neutrally written criticism can be added back to the article. Here is the diff of the material that was removed during the edit-war, which needs to be reviewed to see what is worth keeping (On a quick glance ft.com is certainly a reliable source; not sure of the other two). Can you, or anyone else knowledgeable about the area, take a look? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should ask a Brit, but here's my take on it. The Daily Mirror is known to be less reliable, and the comments on WP:RSN range from unreliable to "no worse than other newspapers". The Guardian is generally reliable.
 * I know very little about Sporting Intelligence, but they won a 2014 award as Specialist Sports Website of the year by the British Sports Journalists' Association which indicates that it's a reliable source. Their articles about Mr. Huang appear to be well researched and in many cases name their sources. It looks like a reliable source to me. Sjö (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both of you. Can this negative information therefore be added back to the page - in either its original format or abridged/integrated into the other text? I seem to be now locked out, so do please add it if you can. Many thanks. Just as importantly, any criticism of Mr. Huang should be protected from deletion, as the person who consistently deletes the criticism seems particularly diligent in keeping an eye on this page and editing it to reflect a more positive picture of Mr. Huang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.139.159 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've readded it, but tried to integrate it and removed a couple of sentences that were a bit editorial. Sjö (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

COI tag
I think we can delete it, but I'm asking for comments here first. Sjö (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks Sjö for your help with the article content. If you are satisfied that the current version doesn't contain excessive promotional content, you are welcome to remove the tag.
 * I have semi-protected the article for a year given that the article history shows repeated content addition/blanking since at least Nov 2013 without any attempt to discuss the issues. IP editors as well as account holders are welcome to raise concerns, or put forth suggestion, here on the talk page or use WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN boards to request external input. Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Huang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VmGUWAG2InwJ:www.zoominfo.com/people/Huang_Kenneth_1266572243.aspx+huang+1988+new+york+stock+exchange&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a with https://web.archive.org/web/20100423115102/http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Huang_Kenneth_1266572243.aspx on https://www.zoominfo.com/people/Huang_Kenneth_1266572243.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)