Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Liew


 * 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 keep. SouthernNights (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Jacky Liew

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do not think the subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. The International Business Times is generally unreliable, per WP:IBTIMES; my own search did not turn up anything substantial besides a lot of promotional press releases. His official website (linked in the article) indicates an extensive effort at cross-wiki promotion. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominate not for deletion. The WP:GNG has been reviewed and all of his resources is mainly from Chinese. English wikipedia is allowed for Chinese resources. You may see his reports in Chinese https://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%A3%9F%E5%85%AC%E5%AD%90&sxsrf=AOaemvICVi3CwgL931c69LNypapVpnFatQ:1636784249939&ei=eViPYaLoOMHXz7sPsPWwwAc&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjiiKq-2JT0AhXB63MBHbA6DHg4ChDy0wN6BAgBED8&biw=1799&bih=926&dpr=1 Arrisontan (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Despite trying to improve the article, I struggled to a reason to keep the article. It has been a busy week for me, and I wanted to formulate an AfD for this article this weekend, with a source analysis. However, Dan has opened an AfD. I would use the version accepted by Felix, Special:Permalink/1054175782, for this analysis, as this was the one before me stripping much of the sources from the article. The numbers here correspond to the numbers in References section in this version:
 * Sources 1,2 are about F&B events, with a single line mentioning him attending them.
 * Source 3, a recipe compilation, with just his introduction and a few other chefs scanned in archive.org.
 * Source 4, a master thesis. There are a couple of pages with a decent writeup abou his writing style. However, the author is unknown, and master thesis are generally not as rigourous defended as PhD thesis and thus generally not used as reliable sources here.
 * Source 8/9, are the same source from a newspaper, about him being appointed into a role in the said newspaper.
 * Sources 6, 10, 12, 13, these Chinese sources are based in China, which is far from the home market, Malaysia. One may argue that the subject might be interested in expanding into China, however, this may allude that these mainland China sources are part of a significant PR campaign push. These articles were also dated Oct/Nov 2021 period, which means the coverage of the author wasn't significantly long as compared to his career.
 * Source 14, a Who's who list, with only his writeup conveniently scanned into archive.org.
 * Sources 15 - 24, are his column works, simply to back the statement that he had wrote in those publications. Proven? yes. Reliable? yes. Signifcant coverage? no, as these are about dishes, resturants, or other personalities. And can be considered as primary sources.
 * There are two sources which are his book. I choose to leave them out from analysis as I believe they were made in error (in terms of more of styling than usage) and would have been rectified easily.
 * Even after editing the article to bring down the promotional tone, the sources in the new version are no less promotional or PR-ish. The article had been sitting in Draftspace for many months, due mainly due to COI and promotional tone, and have had gone through multiple reviewers who shared the same concerns. I would have rejected it if it wasn't for the consideration that I was the one of the reviewers who declined one of its earlier submissions. – robertsky (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel like little to no attempt was made to search for the subject under their non-English character name. Because there's a lot of coverage available. And Robertsky's claim above that Chinese article coverage is somehow negative is...not how any form of notability guideline is worded. Anyways, here's an example of the many, many sources available on the person. Apologies for the poor English translation titles.
 * The founder of Malaysian foodie Shi Gongzi who laid the foundation for the "Five Origins of Malaysian Cuisine"
 * The Rise of Malaysian Foodie "Shi Gongzi"
 * The first author in Malaysia known as a gourmet, "Sik Son"
 * The scientific research of the God of Cookery-Foodboy re-defines the new food industry with artificial intelligence
 * The originator of Malaysian gourmets, "Shi Gongzi"
 * Truly Nyonya Malacca, a work handed down by the world’s gourmet master Shi Gongzi
 * A Biography Review of the Gourmet "Malaysian God of Cookery, the Originator of Shi Gongzi"
 * Big data of the God of Cookery, Gourmet, and World Food Master
 * And there's plenty more coverage than just this. So long as you Google search for 食公子 instead of the English version of his pseudonym. Silver  seren C 08:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are wrong about there's no effort made to search under their non-English character name. I evaluate primarily English and Chinese (sometimes Korean and Japanese) sources as these are the languages that I am familar with. I do my research in these different languages when the article calls for it, and even using native search engines, i.e. Baidu, Sohu, etc. Some of what you listed here were in the article initially, see Special:Permalink/1054175782, and the line about Source 6, 10, 12, 13 covers them. I read through the links you posted here, especially those that aren't in previous version, they are repetative and written in a promotional manner, somewhat akin to press releases. Many of these articles are posted recently as well, which again, I feel that it is a promotional push. – robertsky (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments As, the magazines and newspapers stipulated in Robertsky's claim, if the writers had written for so much of magazines and also written columns in Nanyang Siang Pau (one of the four mainstream newspapers in the Malaysia) for more than 20 years (since 1988 regards to the master thesis and so others publications), then he should have enough notability or at least famous in the food world of Malaysia.Arrisontan (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Google Scholar shows that the paper isn't cited at all, thus having limited, if not no scholarship influence. Of course, Google Scholar may not reflect offline papers not published online, but the mater thesis is dated 2018, and most, if not all, new scholarly materials that can be reliably used are available online. Searches with different keywords, i.e. the Chinese title of the thesis, file URL, etc on Google and Baidu reveals the same outcome. It isn't even listed on Baidu's equivalent of Google Scholar. – robertsky (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notable food critic in Malaysia and there are enough sources available as specified by Silverseren that make him pass the WP:GNG easily. I would say that he had written many columns in Malaysian newspapers which can be found if archived by the respective publishers. Berantral (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , again, these sources are promotional in nature. Take for example, in this source, which is listed by Sliverseren: 从1996年，始有第一个专栏，是以“廖圣然”为名，如果没记错，他在2000年才用“食公子”为笔名. Translation: "From 1996, he wrote under the name "Liao Sheng Ran" when he first started writing, and if (I/someone) didn't remember wrongly, he started using the pen name "Si Gongzi" from 2000." (emphasis mine). I'm sorry, but how's that reliable reporting, using terms akin to 'if i remember correctly'? Also the content of this source is repeatedly posted here, here, and here. The article was being attributed to either "中国科创网" or "网络". 网络 may be a misattribution, but if it is not, it meant that the source of the article was simply from the Internet. How's that reliable? "中国科创网" leads to here, which is either not indexed properly by the various search engine, or the article simply does not exist. Interestingly, this site when clicked on the site logo from an unrelated article in the header, leads to another site with the same content, same layout. SEO gaming? The "中国科创网" search on also leads to a similarly either not indexed, or article can't be found site .I am not denying the fact that he has written many columns in Malaysia newspapers, but please provide better and more reliable sources. Most of these sources were inserted only after being told repeatedly to the author, who's a COI editor, that it lacks reliable sources. – robertsky (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. Just to contribute some of my opinions.
 * 1. Sources 1&2 although is about F&B event in 2007 and 2017 reported in Malaysia newspapers, i know that it has no significant coverage, but it indeed has old report about his activity and a line about him as food critic in Malaysia, so he is still has food career activities til now. Although trivial but he has been noticed.
 * 2. Although the master thesis did not have the reliability, but it can regarded as the society has interest to the subject and discuss about his writing style and contributions.
 * 3. I think currently there are many China reports was due to his biography had published recently and raise the notice of China and the repetative probably due to the contents and sources were came from his biography contents.
 * 4. By the way, he has written the column in Feminine (风采) magazine which is the Malaysia top Chinese magazine since 2000-2013 and he had been interviewed with many politicians that I could found from 2008-2013. He should be received a mentioned or noticed from people. The date and issue can be look to the bottom of the page. Take it as references although it is primary resources. The part of collections archived that I could found as below:
 * https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fF6WS3g6itK1n_i-tHbNQnApNYYexXx2/view?usp=sharing
 * 5. Furthermore, I think he had written for more than 10 magazines and mainstream newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau's columns in his career. (Noted that Nanyang Siang Pau has 176798 circulation in Malaysia in 2000 until 2007 still have 114049 daily circulation, refer sources:https://mediamalaysia.net/archives/4418). I dont think he is totally not notability at all (although there is lack of Malaysia news significantly coverage about him). There is also China magazine that reprint his book content and he wrote column in China magazine. So I also don't think he is totally no market in China. Indeed, it is possible to get him expand the interest to China.
 * https://archive.org/details/20200623_20200623_1032/page/3/mode/2up
 * https://archive.org/details/20210909_20210909_0236
 * 6. Regards to the magazine he wrote in 1998 which is sources 15,16 and 17 shown he used his penname 廖圣然，which means that he indeed use this as the pen name previously, in the below link can see in 2000 feminine i found in his biography, he is use 食公子 as penname. Take it as reference although it is a primary sources.
 * https://drive.google.com/file/d/1msKiDDKvvkyWIWiW4fGhwKMoM58PqOay/view?usp=sharing
 * 7. 如果没记错 is a kind of writing style to express the author opinion. It is not exactly a thing to consider it as unreliable. In addition, sometimes, the China websites would forward the news without permission. But some other webs are like from the country-based or state-based newspapers. Like sources 12 and 13 is original reports.
 * 8. His book also published in Seashore Publishing Company, one of the famous publisher in HK and branch in Malaysia.


 * Therefore, I think this article can keep and improve.Arrisontan (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * : point 1: refer to WP:SIGCOV. point 2: again not reliable, thus discussion about master thesis is moot.point 3: no comments.point 4: can be considered as primary sources, and original research. point 5: see WP:RSSELF and WP:SPS on mediamalaysia.net. no one here is denying the notability of the Nanyang Siang Pau, therefore using mediamalaysia.net to back your case is irrelevant. But notability of the newspaper does not equate to the notabilty of the subject, nor can be lent to the subject. although there is lack of Malaysia news significantly coverage about him therefore where's the proof of his notability in Malaysia? archive.org links may have copyright issues. who holds the copyright? the author or the publication? and they are primary sources as well.point 6: as you have noted, primary source and thus may be original research.point 7: i am still of the belief that the articles are promotional in nature. how would you know that only sources 12 and 13 are original? If so, can we say that all these sources can be collapsed into these two sources? point 8: again, notability cannot be lent. – robertsky (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We should put a comprehensive evaluation. The word I spoke of that Malaysa news lack of significantly coverage was due to it is hard to find the archived old news in Malaysia but he has also not totally that no news report about him. As he had worked for some famous magazines and newspaper for many years and interviewed for politicians from 2008-2013, it can assumes that he received some attention and I just stating that he had market in China too, which you say that it is "far from his home market" is not 100% true. Because you are judge on the basis that he has no market in China, so it is probably a promotional content. I think that is also not true. And he has fulfill the WP:BASIC with the references.  Sources 12 has written the sources come from his own net, it is a founded in 1997, was approved by the State Council Information Office. Sources 13 also written the sources is on his own original report from China Internet Information Center. Other news sources 10, sources 5, sources 6 is also from reputable web which you can got the relevant information from Internet.  Arrisontan (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I personally would have given this article a chance to develop as it passed AfC process. There is no hurry to discover each and every sources. There is an indication offline sources may exists. The journalist has long contributed to major publication and his body of work pass WP:NWRITER. I would lean keep and concur with User:Silver seren and User:Berantral (especially, because they know the Malaysian articles really well). Happy to improve it as clutter has been cleaned already. 167.98.47.71 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2021 (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.