Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin


 * 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 delete.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails bio, refbomb but most if not all of the ref can't proof notability. Article build by SPA, possibly sock of the Foundation banned User:蟲蟲飛 -AINH (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are only reliable sources passing mention. No in-depth reliable sources. Many of the sources don't seem to be independent from the subject. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a poet he does not seem meeting WP:N. The aritcle is very likely to be contributed by Jeffery Ngai himself, who is very likely the owner of WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛. --UjuiUjuMandan (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't speculate the ownership of wiki account with public figure. Probably Jeffrey Ngai is not passing Notability (academics) but it is way too wide guess to claim User:蟲蟲飛 = Jeffrey Ngai thus this article is autobiography. Matthew hk (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that forum post https://lihkg.com/thread/2698839 CANNOT be a reliable source to claim this is autobiography Matthew hk (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One more comment. It seems too coincidence that Jeffrey Ngai has made a poem 萤火虫, which has this line "蟲蟲飛，星星飛. ", but "點蟲蟲, 蟲蟲飛" itself is a traditional children song. Jeffrey Ngai's poem seem more like a derived work or heavily inspired by the song. And obviously just one coincidence cannot prove it is an autobiography . Rather, created by globally lock editor, can it be a speedy deletion reason? I am rusty on deletion policy. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably notable in its own field, however, not in general public sense of WP:GNG. Up to you guys checking Notability (academics) of this person. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also since he is an author (source ), probably need to check are there any book review or periodical about him as well (which the periodical need to be free of COI such as he is the editor himself) But i would guesstimate from google search it does not have these articles. Matthew hk (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This newspaper have book review and interview with this writer, seen http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/resfile/2020-03-22/A06/ycwb20200322A06.pdf. --14.0.174.181 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.174.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I really not sure interview counted as primary source or not. And then really not sure WP:RSN treat any of the Chinese state media, or regional newspaper owned by regional branch of Communist Party, are reliable source. Note that ycwb.com = 金羊网, is operated by 羊城晚报, which in turn owned by 羊城晚报报业集团, which according the newspaper itself, the newsgroup is owned by CCP Guangdong branch's Publicity Department
 * But at least as a Hong Kong based author, he seems did not appear in any of the Hong Kong newspapers (edit: i mean real HK newspaper instead those owned by Chinese gov that no one really read; the author does not appear in Sing Tao or Ming Po or Oriental Daily that owned by pro-Chinese businessmen. 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)). Matthew hk (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I got much difficulty to comprehend what you're trying to mean. Would you please clarify your message? If in case that doesn't work I would suggest with all due respect that you should focus on Wikipedia version(s) of the language(s) which you are familiar with. 124.217.188.201 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude....you, 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195, are obvious WP:DUCK. Matthew hk (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For personal opinion as i am rusty in en-wiki that i dont read everything in WP:RSN. I would say interview cannot be a prove for notability, and every single state media of Chinese cannot treat as a reliable source as default stance. Of course when the media reporting a merely a non-political CCP party member, or a state owned company, there is little COI in it so that probably state media can be used in case by case basic. but the behaviour of keep publish the same interview in different state owned newspapers, seems there is agenda in it that state media tried to print "reliable source" for zh-wiki as the zh-wiki counterpart has a few afd for a few years. Matthew hk (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @124.217.188.201: For the record it was Matthew HK who first posted his remarks as a reply to my comment. He moved his reply subsequently and I was not aware of this edit when I responded to his reply. 124.217.188.201 (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Dude.....stick to the same ip next time instead of catching as WP:DUCK by vote stacking in the same ip range 124.217.188.X. The use of spa is legit. Matthew hk (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Its"? Isn't this an insult? 124.217.188.201 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable person as demonstrated by the referenced materials. 124.217.188.201 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: Rationale? 124.217.188.201 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment and once again the drama of emerge of SPA Matthew hk (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The zh-wiki counterpart of this afd (but as deletion review ) also has ip edits that crossed out that deemed those edits are made by suspected sock: zh:Wikipedia:%E5%AD%98%E5%BB%A2%E8%A6%86%E6%A0%B8%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82 Matthew hk (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: 124.217.188.* has been blocked in zhwiki since they are the sock of the globally banned user: User:蟲蟲飛 per zhwiki AIV report. SCP  -20  00  11:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In en-wiki, I would get the answer that ip can't link (tag) to any registered user by CU. Some ip are obvious sock they will block it but not officially tag them as sock. They are duck already due to obvious vote stacking by 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195. While 14.0.174.181, this is the right venue: Sockpuppet investigations/124.217.188.195. Matthew hk (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is "a lot" of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste (not changing a single word) published by Chinese Central Government owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po, and their web-version counterpart from the same media company, which seems the Chinese Government want to print a lot of publication to try to "prove" he notability . And apart of these state-owned media and copy and paste articles, the subject is absent from main stream media or notable literature periodical (which peer reviewed by real notable academics) Matthew hk (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Don’t think that enwiki admin doesn’t speak Chinese, then you can lie. There are newspapers and magazines from different places in the article, including not only Hong Kong media, but also media from all over the world. See 、、. Please do not introduce the struggle of Hong Kong's literary world to enwiki. lihkg.com has appeared canvassing for deletion of this Article. Please note that real puppets are a very serious matter.--14.0.169.86 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.169.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Dont worry on canvassing, I had told the admins and clerk (somewhere here and here; i think my brain has messed up so that i dont mention lihkg in this ANI but i falsely remember i had) that lihkg has running a cult already, admin can identify vote stacking (for deletion for lihkg POV on this author) as well as obvious SPA that no edit in other field (which is you), or obvious keep voting stack from the same ip range. Also, https://kowloonpost.hk is a web media that no one read, it just another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup. I probably vote keep if he appears in Apple Daily or Ming Po (oh wait, Chinese gov closed down Apple Daily, which i personally think this newspaper actually has a lot of both pro-Chinese and pro-democracy content ) Matthew hk (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also note that editors that have quite a lot of edits, would probably summoned by WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong to this afd. This including me. It is weak to accuse other editors that placed their deletion "vote" (but wikipedia is !vote) is canvassed offsite. But since you those ip guys have no edits outside afd at all, you are more likely WP:DUCK. Matthew hk (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The latest comment on that LIHKG post was three days ago, long before this deletion nom. The real puppets are all these IPs that are from the same ISP and have almost no edit at all recently and just suddenly come and vote to keep the article-AINH (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, not really relevant to this afd but why has the infobox got is nationality as Hong Kong? as HK is a part of China shouldn't his nationality be Chinese? Also its not that helpful that most of the article's references are situated at the end of the first paragraph, so which is related to each piece of info?, a fair number look like author interviews so may not be suitable (?), above discussion is also quite disturving so unless other stronger sources are found i'm leaning to a delete on this. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the concern for nationality: Not all Hong Kong residents are Chinese. One need not change the nationality to Chinese before being a permanent resident and getting a permanent ID card. see right of abode in Hong Kong. However, I do agree that "Hong Kong" should not be a nationality. When writing articles (not talking about Ngai), I would write "Hong Kong" as citizenship if I do not find enough information to say one's nationality is Chinese or whatsoever. Though if one's ethnicity is Chinese, his nationality is very likely to be Chinese (Hong Kong). Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 03:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Greetings. I happen to be here for I am chasing down the puppet accounts of User:蟲蟲飛 (hereafter CCF), a former admin banned by the Foundation for doing nasty things . I was the user PROVING RIGOROUSLY that CCF is Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. This link refers (Chinese only). If one cares to read the deduction, please feel free to drop me a line so I can translate it in English. I put it to you that, some remaining ZH admins uphold logic like "CCF is a girl, so she can't be Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin". This is a threat, as CCF by then could always return with new accounts and bypass the global lock by just SAYING "I keep a dog, CCF doesn't. so I ain't CCF." Oh by the way, you may want to take a look on the page creator Sexymary and see how similar this is to the crazy logic some admins uphold. This is also one of the many alleged puppet accounts. Anyway, let's go back to the page deletion. If one accept my DEDUCTION (not induction, not guessing, not gut feeling), then the Chinese version (just got deleted after a huge debate between CCF's friends and foes) is an autobiography. I confirm that the current English version is a direct translation of the concerned chinese version of a particular time. So this entails the fact of this page being also an autobiography. Even if you insist stupid logic of "CCF is a she so she can't be a he", Jeffrey_Ngai_Pang_Chin is of ZERO NOTABILITY in the Hong Kong / Chinese community, not to mention if an English page is of any use. Although I cannot deny that he is becoming more famous for all the nasty things on wiki LOL. If I am also allowed to travel outside the scope: I also mentioned in the Chinese delete discussion that since CCF is/was an very experienced former wiki admin, AND, he keeps returning to wiki in an non-stop manner(and got IP and accounts banned), one has to exercise caution to (1) stop the globally banned user from returning, and, (2) stop one for "wiki-rules-tailor-making" a "look-independent" interview so that the wiki page can be restated. --Ihatesmoker (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful to "prove" whether the subject is CCF here. Analyzing the "sources" is a better way to let users on enwiki see if this is notable or worth an article. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 06:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, what I was proposing was that the thread is actually a self-written autobiography. --Ihatesmoker (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it is likely to be an autobiography, but it is not necessarily related to CCF. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 08:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "It FEELS like an autobiography" is an induction, while the above mentioned link in Chinese is a deduction. Whether one accepts the IP evidences I quoted is a personal choice. I put it to you that if those evidences were discovered at the time, CCF would have definitely banned for being a puppet of 大撚, which entails being Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. --Ihatesmoker (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, my intention to comment was a reminder. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Keep but am open to changing to delete if the sources are refuted. In this edit, presented three sources. I don't see direct engagement from the participants in the discussion about these sources aside from some commentary by Matthew hk. Each of the sources contain interview content, but I believe there is sufficient non-interview content for Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin to pass Notability (people) (if the sources are reliable): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." I am open to changing to delete if editors explain why these three sources cannot be used to establish notability. Matthew hk is the only editor who specifically discussed the sources such as calling the Kowloon Post "another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup" (is there a reliable source that verifies this?) and noting that "Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is 'a lot' of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste" (is that the case for these articles as I haven't seen this demonstrated?). From the consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard about WP:XINHUA: "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua." I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of the poet Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, I do not see "a reason to use [the coverage] for propaganda or disinformation" so the sources do not seem unreliable on that basis. Is this the wrong assessment, or should the sources be unreliable on a different basis? My analysis does not (I added the missing word "not" as I had intended to say "does not" not "does". Cunard (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)) take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis. Here are quotes from each source:  Yangcheng Evening News is a newspaper with a circulation of over one million. The first article notes: "Wei Pengzhan's "New Poetry Creation Method" is a very distinctive monograph on the theory and techniques of new poetry creation. The author is a young poet, and it is now convincing to speak from him. ... The technique explained by Wei Pengzhan here is often used in ancient metrical poems." The article contains interview content. The sidebar that contains an interview in a second article notes: "Born in Hong Kong in 1980, poet, editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poems", Hong Kong President of Fiction and Poetry Association, Doctor of Literature. Author of poetry theory "New Poetry Creation Method" and poetry collection "Looking for the most beautiful scar in the darkest place"."  The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin studied for a master's degree in Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Hong Kong in his early years, and later studied for a Ph.D. in Chinese at Sun Yat-Sen University, specializing in classical literature. From studying ancient poems to writing new poems, Ngai Pang Chin bluntly said that new poems are only a hundred years old and can be developed." The article contains interview content.  The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin is a Chinese teacher at the Prince's Primary School, but he also has an identity-the chairman of the Hong Kong Fiction and Poetry Association and the editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poetry". His connection with new poetry originated from middle school." The article contains interview content. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * As a local HKers, I confirm that the latter two, namely Lion Rock Daily and Kowloon Post, are of no significance in Hong Kong. In fact this is my first time learning their existence. From my brief research just now, they are all funded by pro-Beijing camps, cover only the so-called communist-politically correct propaganda. Put aside the politics (as some WMF banned chinese users were alleged to have illegally obtained personal information of HK wiki users and turned them in to the newly established "National Security Bureau"), you can tell how popular they are by browsing their facebook pages(https://www.facebook.com/lionrockdailyhk/)(https://www.facebook.com/KowloonPost/): less than 5 likes in average per post. Some may argue that they have several thousand followers. Please also take a look on the recommendation page: fake accounts with 10 to 0 friend give 5 stars reviews in SIMPLIFIED chinese, suggested that they are of non-Hong Kong background. I doubt if any reputable newspaper would do that. They are of no impact, still they are funded to operate. You may ask "so why are they funded?". Put aside politics :)


 * Now, for the first source you have quoted, Yangcheng Evening News. I have just skimmed through the pdf article you have quoted and can't wait to share my findings. By the way, I am in no position to suggest the credibility of the Yangcheng Evening News, as the habitat in publishing varies from country to country. One can't expect there is any anti-Kim newspaper in the North Korea I assume. Okay, let's go back to the article. I have found the following interesting:
 * 1. The Chinese characters right above the picture of CCF is 香港作家系列11 (Hong Kong Author Series 11). My first instinct was to search for the articles for other authors in the same series. I did so by googling 羊城晚报+"香港作家系列" (羊城晚报 being the name of the newspaper). the CCF one is the only result.
 * One may suggests others have expired and therefore no on the internet. WRONG: the first result is from the official website of the newspaper. So where are 1-10? any 12? I ain't suggesting there wasn't any 1-10. I just want to try if 1-10 were famous or like the "Hong Kong JK Rowling". But no, there isn't any.
 * One may also suggests that I shall use chinese search engine instead of google. Not to mention I did manage to search for the CCF one on google. I have tried using the chinese search engine but in vain. BUT THEN I HAVE DIGGED UP THE STORY OF THIS SERIES. The most relevant and official result is http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/html/2020-01/19/content_7_230293.htm . It says "自2019年7月至今，羊城晚报开辟湾区文艺评论专版，通过访谈、约稿等形式，以每周一版的规模对粤港澳三地的文学界进行全方位扫描，陆续推出“香港作家系列”“澳门作家系列”策划，引起广泛关注. 经过各方面的努力推动，粤港澳三地文学的交流互动进一步热络起来，关于粤港澳大湾区文学的历史回望及未来建构也成为热门话题. " My focuses are:
 * 通过访谈(through interview)、约稿 (call for a draft). The newspaper actually invited the authors to submit articles (and there were also interview section).
 * 陆续推出“香港作家系列”(Hong Kong Author Series “澳门作家系列”策划 (Macau/Macao Author Series). I tried to search for 羊城晚报+"澳门作家系列". dah dah! I finally found where 1-10 are. CCF is the only Hong Kong author covered. Correct me if I am wrong. I truly can't find any trace of others Hong Kongers.
 * 2. The section right of the picture of CCF is a Q&A section. I tried searching for the editor/reporter of this article 邹中海 but again in vain. It appears that 邹中海 may not be a regular reporter/editor. The Q&A consisted of only 8 short questions and of no depth. Base on the published time (during COVID, border shut down, they couldn't meet, only online communication) and how shallow the Q&A section was, together with the picture of CCF was obviously a self-submitted one, I think I can safely proposed that the Q&A was not seriously done, like the one in 60 minutes. I further propose that the format was likely to be one-way: not really two-way Q&A, but CCF submitted his response to 邹中海 email/SMS only. If one is interested, you can translate the following official Q&A (http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/h5/html5/2020-03/22/content_6_246771.htm) using google translate: the Q&A section is a joke.
 * 3. The bottom left of the pdf, the article on the left of the two book covers: title: 我的文学路 (My lit. Journey). The two chinese characters on its left: 自敍 (autobiography). The entire autobiography use first person description. Fair enough, it is a autobiography after-all. So this part was submitted entirely by CCF.
 * conclusion: I am not sure if Yangcheng Evening News is reputable. What I can tell is, this so called article consisted of a long paragraph of self-written garbage and a very short section of Q&A which was of very low quality. The entire series is fishy.
 * you have also mentioned "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis." This link refers (Chinese only). The Check User was not done solely because the concerned edits were like half a decade ago. The deduction of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin = CCF, in my humble opinion, is flawless. --Ihatesmoker (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking the time to provide a very detailed analysis of the sources! Your analysis is precisely what I was looking for. Before your comment, I found a lot of discussion in this AfD about other topics but could not find a direct rebuttal of all three of 's sources. Regarding "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis". I actually meant to write "My analysis does not take into consideration". I've fixed my comment to add "not". Though it does not affect my position on whether to retain or delete this article, this is really interesting analysis, though, thank you for sharing that. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per 's analysis of why the sources are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject. Changed from "keep". Cunard (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.