Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Liew (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The first week's worth of comments doesn't seem to show any agreement on what to do with the article, while some of the comments since the relist are somewhat vague and lacking in depth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Jacky Liew
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most of the sources are typically press releases with overwhelmingly promotional tones and suspicious claims from news websites with low reputations. 虹易 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Which news websites have "low reputations"? And how are you addressing the sources brought up in the prior AfD that were why it resulted in a Keep decision? As an example, the Chinese Wikipedia article on him is rather extensive in all respects, including sourcing. Here's just a few examples:
 * It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver  seren C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver  seren C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver  seren C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're trying to claim things as "press releases" of your own accord without evidence. Food and foodie news coverage is routinely written in a praising manner. Silver  seren C 03:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Journalism,  and Malaysia. – robertsky (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! I feel sorry for failing to notice there is a previous AFD. But I did roughly examine sources in the Chinese Wikipedia. The majority of the sources supporting the achievements and awards of the subject are from news websites in mainland China, with which I am pretty familiar. Based on my experience, I am sure that they are just cheap press releases. In mainland China nowadays, news publication is "industrialized", thanks to Xi's crackdown on journalism, in the sense that even those traditional government-backed newspapers tend to sell their news at "transparent" and insanely "low" prices. The first source is from China Business Herald (zh: 中国商报). Its "news" article is sold at as low as 90 CNY (< 15 USD), as listed in a news-selling platform connected with hundreds of state-level or traditional reputable local newspapers(scroll down and the search box is on the right side). And from its text,

"...he is also listed on Wiki(pedia) in dozens of languages in the world and various Chinese online encyclopedias. As the first person in Malaysia, he was selected as the modern Chinese gourmet who stood side by side with the eight ancient gourmets, Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan and Yuan Mei."


 * It is ridiculous, far from just praising. The second cctvzyzg.com, even implied by its domain "CCTV", is an unknown website (copycat of cctv.com, I suppose). It has little traffic and no links from zhwiki. The third xindushiwang.com appears to be a content farm with a fake ICP license number. In mainland China, the government requires every website to be licensed before serving. If it was true, should include it (No.豫ICP备19028662号-6 or its domain). It also explains why it is hosted on Hong Kong servers, which is barely possible due to excessive Internet regulation policies and the Great Firewall. The other sources listed in zhwiki are no better, except for some magazines published in Malaysia, which usually do not constitute "significant coverage" or are irrelevant.--虹易 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @虹易 thanks for the additional information. in my opinion, if the subject is really notable, there should be a balance between domestic and international sources. however, this is really skewed towards international sources, and like you have mentioned, many aren't really notable. – robertsky (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes! That is exactly the point that I tried to express. --虹易 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. and per what I have mentioned before in the first afd, which is similar to what the nominator rationalised. – robertsky (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Indeed a notable subject of food critic in Malaysia. The news in mainland China could be he further development in China market newly in the recent years. As mentioned before, other offline sources maybe discovered. There are also some other reliable news report :http://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html. Since he passed Afd, he should be passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrisontan (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , the article from Takungpao is even worse than those listed in zhwiki. The text contains numerous grammar, punctuation errors, and chaotic sentences. It seems to be generated by a broken machine instead of a sane human. --虹易 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is translated from broken machine, because as you know the article contained a lot of prose written in classical Chinese, for me, I can understand it totally. And the translate machine cannot translate the classical Chinese well. Arrisontan (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by "classical Chinese"?--虹易 (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 引用了一些典籍、古文类文体，这些都是翻译机器不能翻译的 Arrisontan (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , just in the paragraph: "连仿维基、百科,具大量转载,国外报导都是他", "从他传记获海量人数支撑的六行权重性“全站链接”,智能萃取他与世界美食家并列", "以为他创建各国十数个维基,中国他传式百科,具少不了食公子的履历. ". These are obviously not valid sentences whether in modern or classical Chinese. I would call them a string of Chinese words chained in chaotic order. --虹易 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say it is a long sentence that require a high level of understanding to the expression, but it still can be understand. Arrisontan (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But if say it is a machine translate article. it seems not. Because Ta Kung Pao is a state-owned newspapers, the editor would not let a machine translate thing published anyway. Arrisontan (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Unreliable source then. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The takungbao.com is serving mainland China with simplified Chinese and takungpao.com.hk is serving Hong Kong with traditional Chinese. As I explained earlier, such kinds of state-backed newspapers in mainland China are cheap enough nowadays. That article won't cost a few dollars to get posted. And in a poll in November 2019, "Ta Kung Pao once again took the last seat with a credibility score of 3.30, making it the media with the lowest credibility score in Hong Kong". The "article" posted in the "state-backed newspapers" just again proves that someone buys tons of low-quality press releases or advertorial. (I would not like to dive into the problem of the news itself for now. I think a consensus can be established easily in zhwiki, if necessary. There are plenty of editors familiar with or fluent in both modern and classical Chinese.) --虹易 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arrisontan if he were to further develop in China, we should have seen sources from the more mainstream/familar online media from China than these random sites, even if they are short articles. – robertsky (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I can find some mainstream and online media platform written about his biography and introduce him.
 * https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)
 * http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)
 * http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media)
 * It indeed have other sources to support him active in China in recent years as there are other familiar and mainstream newspaper reporting him. The above just few examples seem more reliable that exactly report by the official news web and discussing his works and life. Arrisontan (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , Sina is a mainstream portal website with huge traffic. IMO, it is somewhat reputable 10 years ago, but not today. This article in Jan 2022 doesn't even have an author's name. And it shares exactly the same content as the one from zgswcn with some sentences trimmed (almost every sentence in sina can be found in zgswcn). So it is pretty clear that either both the two articles are advertorials paid by the same broker, or Sina blatantly steal the article from zgswcn.com without attribution. In whichever case, it reflects an awful reputation. The second article consists of a bunch of mixed usage of halfwidth and fullwidth Chinese punctutations which indicates the lack of basic proofreading before publishing. Chinareports.org.cn is a state-owned political magazine, which must have an editorial team, but seemingly not the case for the website. Again, no author's name. So is the third one. What's more, except for the one in Takungbao which is incomprehensible, all these reports published in mainland China follow a distinctively unorthodox grammar and write in a special style, which I have never seen before in published Chinese newspapers as a native speaker. Such styles are neither modern nor typical classical Chinese, and neither spoken nor oral. It is absolutely impossible that every website/newspaper just shares this unique grammar and style of writing. I am confident that they are written by a single person or team before getting published on tons of strange websites, which again supports my assumption that they are typical undisclosed press releases or advertorials. Last but not least, these sources in mainland China cover significantly Liew‘s activities, awards, achievements, and titles in Malaysia, instead of China, with a whale of compliments. I fail to find a reasonable explanation of how they learn about and verify these details with no correspondents or journalists in Malaysia if there is little or no coverage by media in Malaysia. Also, it should take no effort to find numerous reports by highly reputable media in Malaysia and the world on "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as claimed by those media in mainland China. --虹易 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although what you said Sina is steeling articles from the web, but it still not can be regarded as your claims that it is content paid by advertorials. And there has no exact prove that written by the same person. What you have argue just a presumption.
 * It can't be said that the subject does not have reports from Malaysia newspapers, just that Malaysia medias not uploading their news online, they more focus on offline publishers, which I dig from the previous version of Wikipedia, he indeed have reports https://archive.org/details/20200611_20200611_1640 // https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/sin-chew-daily-melaka-edition/20170906/284283890208084 // https://archive.org/details/food-digest but not coverage, so it got no count as sources.
 * Malaysia news developed their online media in these years only and they just selectively put what's report offline to online platform. That's why previous Afd concludes offline sources must be somewhere. Arrisontan (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is a basic evaluation per WP:RS and common sense. I think it is crystal clear that these tons of extremely low-quality sources in mainland China are cheap press releases and advertorials with countless problems, most of which are obvious enough if it was on zhwiki, such as the chaotic article on Takungpao. Other than those sources in mainland China, most sources in Malaysia are WP:PRIMARY, and so are the three above. And most importantly, none of them support or just mention the claims "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" and "World Gourmet Master", as repeated in every source in mainland China. Among Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, Guangming, Kwongwah have online reports as early as 2007, Overseas Chinese Daily News and Sin Chew Daily as early as 2009.--虹易 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please find in detail that the above sources I provide did mentioned him is the "World Gourmet Master", the examples of Malaysia news you provide, as I said like some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated. The claims should be focus on whether he is enough WP:GNG which passed him in previous Afd, but not the statement of "the first person to be known as a foodie in Malaysia", "the earliest ancestor of and the god of gourmet" etc. The focus of your points is a bit out of the track. Arrisontan (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * some they are selectively upload online which quite frustrated indeed, which I am puzzled. If you had ruffled through the edit history of this article, the sourcing of the really promotional versions that had been scrubbed were old articles uploaded/used by the creator of this article, which I can safely say, who has obvious COI (there's off-wiki evidence to collaborate on this as well). If there are old articles about the subject, there's a good chance that she would have an archive of the news articles, and uploaded more. – robertsky (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Can't comment on the quality of the sources listed. I find one listing from the International Business Times, Singapore, which is an unreliable source. I find nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lean weak keep. Sources as mentioned by Silverseren are certainly reliable and meets WP:GNG requirements. I would have voted delete if whole article depended on IBT (which is certainly an unreliable source) but this is not the case. Previous AfD discussed these so repeating them is not effective. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the first one, the latter two listed by Silverseren are just content farms & counterfeit websites. How could they be reliable at all?--虹易 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just need to change sources, there are no proof that he is not famous in China, some other reliable source that you said from official web can be found
 * https://gd.sina.com.cn/news/jk/2022-01-06/detail-ikyamrmz2036790.shtml (Sina Corporation, China mainstream online platform focus on entertainment, life)
 * http://whzg.chinareports.org.cn/plus/view.php?aid=12726 (China Reports Network, China state-owned magazines, but need to access through VPN)
 * http://hsqz.china.com.cn/chinanet/index.php/Home/Index/readcontent/contentid/27499 (China Internet Information Center, another China state-owned media) Arrisontan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been covered above in @虹易's reply. – robertsky (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources, it is consider as original and it is definitely not content farms or counterfeit website. Arrisontan (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * i concur with what @虹易 said about these sources (other than the one that needs vpn, which I don't have access at the moment), individually, they are not reliable. I won't comment on the reliability of the sites themselves. Most of these articles were pushed out in Dec 2021 - Jan 2022 period, which to me seems to be a PR/marketing push. If he was truly notable, there should have been continuous stream of news/articles after that, but no, we have yet to see more articles dated after this. – robertsky (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still continuous publishing to April, just then it is just relevant to his opinion, so i didnt put up. However, it can still be consider as in a continuous form until now http://www.cassbase.com/html/Exclusive%20information_1690_4006.html Arrisontan (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As is noted in the article, "the original text is excerpted from 'Food Psychology' published in November 2020 in 食公子经典", an autobiography by Liew. Again, at the bottom of the article, familiar sentences: "a famous world gourmet master in Malaysia, an international judge, the ancestor of the god of gourmet, and "a modern gourmet that is as famous as the eight ancient gourmets in China." It is a financial research institution's homepage, not a newspaper. Certainly, it has nothing to do with food and gourmet. And I don't think it has a reporter. How would they happen to know such a person and how could they verify those claims then? Look at that section called "Exclusive reports", it is full of low-quality press releases about random topics irrelevant to finance or ecnomics. --04:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: He's got a significant amount of coverage in Chinese and Malaysian media such as Ta Kung Pao, and given his long spanning career, there's definitely going to be a lot of offline coverage as well. It would be wrong to dismiss him as being non-notable. Babib90 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Babib90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Conversely, a lot of reporters/journalists have/had long spanning careers with no notable coverage. All that have been presented so far are his own writings and promotional pieces of him. If there are offline sources, it is highly likely that these maybe his articles as well. Ta Kung Pao was analysed by @虹易 above, and from what they laid out, doesn't seem to be as reliable as you think it is. – robertsky (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: sources provided on the article's talk page suggest the topic meets WP:GNG. –– FormalDude  talk  22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, . As I explained above, none of those sources published in mainland China seems serious at all. I am very confident, as a native Chinese speaker, that they are cheap and extremely low-quality press releases or advertorials written by a single person or a small team in distinctively strange and generally unacceptable Chinese grammar. That's the reason why I raise the second deletion discussion. And I would like to analyse any other source if you find them to look credible. --虹易 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per FormalDude and WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG now. 173.179.229.12 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. He appears notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. thoroughly explains why the sources being cited aren't adequate to establish any notability; I have yet to see anyone refute or even deny their claims. Plus, just read their titles. It's quite clear that none of these sources can be taken seriously. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletehttp://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2021/1217/667287.html" actually from 济南网,"最终因其传记为世界维基、中国百科、将他与古代八位美食家及现代五大美食家比肩"really?--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * DeleteI won't speak to the sourcing (since I don't read chinese), but I trust the chinese readers assessment thereof. Furthermore, despite what at least one person above claims, the only change to the article since its nomination for deletion is changing one source from a live link to an archive. Rockphed (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2022 (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.