Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ng


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable martial arts teacher. Article is continously being re-created by a user who is likely either a student or this person himself. Passportguy (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why Passportguy has such a vendetta against me or john Ng. However I have tried very hard to give the information clearly. This is my second attempt in creating the page the earlyer one was deleted in less than one hour. John Ng is a very common name (much like john smith) I do not know about the earlier deleted pages. Also if you look at pages Ng Chung-sok and Ng Mui their is no issue with them and their martial art masters...--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As i have explain to you frequently in the past, a person has to be notable to be included here. If you search for this person on google, you will find next to no pertinent hits and even the article does not mention him doing anything notable. I'm sure your teacher is a great guy and a good teacher, however in a nutshell : if he isn't famous, he doesn't belong here. Passportguy (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off he is not my teacher (would it really matter if he was). Secondly the internet does not hold all of the knowledge in the world. Thirdly when someone is notable in foreign academia you will not find it on the internet (unless your a babblefish expert). As well the martial arts are not cover very well unless your a UFC jackass. You still not addressed my concerns with the pages Ng Chung-sok and Ng Mui. Apparently you have no bias against those pages.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would matter if you are closely connected with this person, see WP:COI. As for the other two : The article on Ng Mui claims that he is "said to have been one of the legendary Five Elders — survivors of the destruction of the Shaolin Temple by the Qing Dynasty" which seems like something notable. As for the other one (Ng Chung-sok- you are correct, I have tagged him for deletion also, as the article does not state that he is notabel either. Passportguy (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. However it was not my intent to get Ng Chung-sok tagged for deletion, I was trying to see where the line is. *Example if Yoda teaches obi-one kenobi then he teaches Luke Skywalker who is notable? Ng Chung-sok taught Yuan Kay-shan he taught Shum Lung same thing really (unless Shum Lung was on UFC last year or dresses up like Elvis and does the viva Los Vegas in the NYC subway... My point is notability is biased to pop culture kitsch and honorable people of the past are lost to Wikipedia.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In your example none of them is notable just because they were a student or a teacher of someone else. Each of these people will have had to have done something significant by themselves to become notable. To use a real-life example : Stalin is notable, his elemrntary school teacher is not, unless he for some reason has been the subject of extensive scientifc research or is notable for some other reason. Passportguy (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand noteability and blah blah whatever... But just take a look at Naked Cowboy and Star Wars Kid pop culture noteability at its best. Many people in history (or martial art history) have done "something significant" and they are not here I think WP needs to have some things changed. IMHO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and rd to either Wang Zi-Ping or possibly Snake_in_the_Monkey%27s_Shadow; nn on his own. See also User_talk:Dank/Archive_7. JJL (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —JJL (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is barely a stub of an article about a notably non-notable subject. LargoLarry (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs an expert I did some research on the man, but am not expert in the field of martial arts, and the name John Ng is far too common to make a search at all easy. My thought is that as a Grand Master and teacher, he must certainly have the slew of awards and medals and commendations that will show his notability. Any experts out there that can help? Further, these searches on THIS Google and Google books seem to show he easily passes WP:BIO per "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He also seems to easily pass WP:ATHLETE per "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport" (when young) and "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (when older), as "sports" as a term is not restricted to baseball, basketball, or football. He even sneaks past WP:CREATIVE per "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors", and "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". Heck, as a Master and Teacher of the martal arts, he even slides in under WP:ACADEMIC, as "academic" is not confined to only books and the "hard" sciences. Yup. Needs an expert.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with this article - and many that get posted - is that they aren't sourced. With nothing substantial on google (those sources you posted above show people with the name Ng - a common name, these people may not be identical with the person in question) - this is very unlikely ever to get sourced. If it does and those source show notablity, I have no objection to the article. In order to keep vanity on here in check, we really need to insist on sources establishing notablity. The off-chance that someone may be notable is not enough to keep an article if that notablity cannot be sufficiently sourced, see WP:V. Passportguy (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with notablity via something "substantial on google", is that many martial artists are not authors and many websites do not keep up with MA tournament awards/accolades. As well if they have contributed to or were talked about in Inside Kung Fu or black belt magazine and many others it will not be found on google. What if john Smith had been published twenty some times in reliable sources periodicals in his field is he then notable? If so, what if a Google search does not find an "online source."--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but lack of sources is a reason to tag for such and not offer for nomination only because it is not currently sourced or over a concern that it make likely never get sourced. Common sense would seem to indicate that someone who is an established Master and teacher (WP:Verified under his name Wing-Lok Ng, not the "Americanized" John Ng), must have participated in the various competitions required to win that Mastership. Yes, I do agree that the article needs sourcing, but as Wikipedia itself grants that it does not expect to be perfect, tagging the article as I have done, for atention by experts in the field, would seem to most prudent course that allows for eventual improvement of the article and the project itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment having an expert look for Chinese-language sources would be great. Even in English, so many martial arts stories are so hagiographic that it's hard to separate the notable individuals from the skilled (but not--notable) practitioners. Lacking evidence, the burden is on the article's editors to provide positive evidence of notability. I wasn't even able to verify the Snake in the Monkey's Shadow connection; it isn't even at this site which is of unclear reliability. JJL (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If another martial artists becomes famous, by using techniques he learned from a certain master, that makes that master notable. How many of his students became notable martial artists from his training?  How many martial artists get to the level he is?  He was mentioned in a DVD and various books.  Would most information about him be in another language?  Is there a way to tag something, to ask for someone who speaks that language to check for resources?   D r e a m Focus  01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the assessment of WP:CoI, because most likely that one person who single-handedly, singularly and persistently wanted to promote this person is either himself or someone too closely related, for any objective perspective. From day one when he promoted John on the Ng page, it has been primarily linked to a promotional web site. Now you see the two external links are promotions, in contrast to the WP principle of neutrality. There may be an easier way out of this impasse. Why not put up the page on the zh side first, which will attract more viewers and followers from Hong Kong communities. Btw, Ng Mui is in a totally different league, being very famous in Kung Fu history.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24 PS. on the suggestion of starting in zh, see Margaret Ng, which caught attention after starting there.--Kgwu24 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24
 * Comments: "Article is continously being re-created by a user"... True. Yup. No doubt. Likely in the hopes of finally getting it right, as few first articles ever spring to these pages aleady "perfect". That lack of understanding requirements for sourcing is understandable... but bless him for not becoming discouraged and leaving Wikipedia forever as some do when their articles fall under repeated fire. But to follow with  "who is likely either a student or this person himself"...?  Wow. Where's the WP:AGF??  There's absolutely no foundation in fact... only a supposition that the author, an editor since January 2008, has a connection with the subject of the article because he's been trying over and over to get it right. Did anyone offer to help? Or was his first contact with Wikipedia editors a CSD tag on his article?  Is that a way to say welcome?  That he has repeatedly tried to get it right does not show COI... but it does show an admirable trait to keep trying no matter what the odds. Yes, it shows lack of understanding of Wikipedia' requirements, but naivte is not a crime and does not merit any assumption of bad faith... ever.
 * Do any here remember their own first efforts to write an article. Did it get speedied? Did it get deleted? Did it get sent to AfD and then get deleted? Did you feel any panic or frustration at your inability to communicate to the editors making decisions of the "importance" of that first article? Is it so easy to forget that we were all newcomers here once?
 * As for the author's being interested in the subject... so what? Interest in a subject is not COI. Who would bother writing an article about something of which he had no interest or care? I think our properly showing the good faith that guideline expects of us, might make Wikipedia just a bit more welcoming to others. Links and sources and format and style are matters properly addressed through WP:CLEANUP... and AFD is not for cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And as an aside... I've been here for 16 months, have some 10,000 edits, and never heard of "on the zh side". Care to instruct the author?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment OK I have to admit I'm a bit confused with the attitudes of some of the editors (and yes WP policies too). I usually just stick to the editing a paragraph on various topics. This is only my second attempt at creating a page from scratch, the other was Bruce lee statue in Hong Kong. Long story short all I wanted to do was make a single one line (footnote at best) about John Ng on the Ng page. However Passportguy kept deleting it saying "he was not notable because he did not have a page."   So, I tried to make one, it was tagged AFD (immedeatly by Passportguy for the second time), now the one banner says to keep editing to make it meet WP standards, another says it is up to the creating editor to add references to make notable. I am trying to save the page and add every thing I can find, -and that makes me a bad faith editor? WOW! On a related topic I hate to say this/toot my own horn but here goes. I am an Expert in the area of Chinese Martial Arts, with over 20 years experience, I doubt there are too many of us tooling around up in here on Wickipedia. I am better suited at punching people, not keyboards, however my knowledge could help many articles with my skill set. WP or as I call it "prick-a-pedia" because allot of folks treat each other so poorly without respect and seem so damn passive aggressive I can see why so many people leave. Thank you  Schmidt,  for restoring my faith. --Duchamps_comb MFA 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If my vote counts.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly your "vote" counts... but Wikipedia does not call it a "vote". However.. and perhaps you did not know, so keep this in mind for the future... inexperienced users are encouraged to construct articles in a special user space called a "sandbox". It is not considered "article space" so what is built and improved therin can be tweaked and made pretty before being "moved" to article space... usually safe from being tagged or deleted (as long as it is not a copyright infringement of something that attacks or defames someone)... and can exist in-situ while you ask input and advice from the many here wiling to lend a hand. You need not put it in "article space" until you have a strong sense that it meets all relevent criteria. Yours would be at User:Duchamps_comb/sandbox. Click that red link, add something to the page, and watch the link turn blue. Worst case scenario here... if the article is deleted as a result of this ongoing AfD, simply let me know and I'll instruct how you might request it be "userfied" (moved) to your sandbox for futher work. There are plenty in aboard who would be willing to help. And in a few days, weeks or months, when it is good and ready, I can also advise/show how it might be returned. The processes are not as daunting as they initialy seems. Treat it like trying to learn a whole new language. The first stuttering words are sometimes difficult, but soon you'll be talking like a native.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've spent several hours investigating this one and have added a couple of references to the article, including John Ng's position as Executive Advisor to the International Chinese Boxing Association. I agree with Michael Schmidt's points above, and feel that some earlier contributors have undermined their comments by jumping to totally unfounded conclusions (eg "who is likely either a student or this person himself", "is either himself or someone too closely related, for any objective perspective"). A number of factors seem to contribute to John Ng's low score on common "quick assessment of notability" strategies:
 * 1) Search engines: Chinese names get transliterated in various ways, and the surname is sometimes first, sometimes last; his names are too common to search without quotes, and using quotes I found several searches to be necessary, including variants "Wing-Lok", "Wingloc" and "Winglock"
 * 2) Bias towards Olympic and team sports: an enormous number of Wikipedia articles about sportsmen and women cite as the only claim to notability the fact that the person competed in the Olympics or is a member of a named team in a named league. Many of these pages are stubs with very scant information. Establishing notability in non-Olympic sports is more challenging.
 * 3) Internet in the 1980s: articles about him did not appear on the internet during his most active years because the internet was very rudimentary in the 1980s. Current articles are about people carrying on the "Wing Lok Ng family style", people taught by "Grandmaster Wing-Lok Ng" - this would account for the low number of articles about the man himself.
 * 4) There were indications in several internet sources that publication of Martial Arts techniques and other related information on the internet was explicitly forbidden. Other writers mentioned that they would rather spend time training than sitting down and typing into the internet.

I have no bias on this subject and no connection whatsoever with the subject matter, with Martial Arts or with any of the other editors. I hope that my observations may help us all to consider carefully before coming to any conclusion. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is probably a silver lining in this series of debates, that our collective awareness has been raised on a potentially interesting topic. Actually the several proposals to merge, or sandbox, or “zh”, all represent reasonable compromises out of this impasse. (The zh phrase refers to an ISO abbreviation used in WP for Chinese language). I gave Margaret Ng as a good example to start in zh. After looking at Duchamp’s series of comments, I’m all the more convinced that he is John Ng – none other. Notice that throughout the thread, he never once came out explicitly to say, “I categorically deny that I’m John Ng.” It would have been easy if he were someone else. In fact, in such case I would even explain how I’m related to Ng (employee, student, admirer, or what not). All he dared say was “so what if I were Ng’s student”. In fact, he got emotionally very defensive and started attacking other messengers or WP policy, with strong words like “prick-a-pedia”, “vendetta”, etc. He also inadvertently displayed his identity by saying that he is that expert for 20+ years. Assuming that Ng is that grand master claimed to be, it should be easy to find ½ dozen admirers to carry this campaign for you. Oh, one more thing, if we look at the external links, the main one on “Dr. Wing-Lok Ng” is clearly a promotional page – certainly not aligned with WP neutrality. Another one, on tripod.com, includes all kinds of commercial ads on kung-fu stuff. The 3rd one, from YouTube, shows Ng’s demo of his kung-fu style. It can be informational or promotional. --Kgwu24 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24
 * Thank you for clarifying what "zh" means. But with the greatest of respects, we part ways on making assumptions about who he is based solely upon his interest in the article. To paraphrase your conclusions: "He is interested in the article, he made a newcomer's mistake with a source, he was testy and rude, and he does not say he is not John Ng... so therefore he must be John Ng". Well... I have an interest in the article, I have occasionally made mistakes with sourcing, and I have also not said that I am not John Ng. And I infer something entirely different than do you, from the author's frustration with Wikipedia... his seeing it as a confusing set of rules and regulations that makes it an unfortunately unfriendly environment for newcomers. I again wish to remind that we consider our own first days in these pages... our trying to sort through the piles upon piles of confusing acronyms in a sometimes (unfortunately) hostile envirnment. He has shown the regrettable but understandable tendency of some new editors by getting testy when both he and his contribution was minimalized. Ignorance is definitely an excuse... but one that is itself excused by the adopting of patience and personal temperance. Have any of us seen such repeat since this conversation began talking to him rather than "at" him or "about" him. I see that THAT shows an ability toward civility that should always be encouraged. And returning to an incorrect reference as "evidence" only underscores his lack of understanding, and is no "evidence" that he is himself the retired Chinese Grand Master. And in my different conclusions, I see that fit of pique at the article being deleted is even more convincing that he is indeed NOT Dr. Wing-Lok Ng (John Ng)... as an experienced Master through years or training would have had patience and tolerance practically built into his mindset... and such pique is representative of someone much younger and far less experienced. As for his observation that wiki is full of infighting and incivility? Well... many AfD's have never been as calm and reasoned as this one. His feeling that Passportguy had a "vendetta" was an unfortunate choice of words... but it has not been repeated. His sharing that he sometimes call this place "prick-a-pedia" is an outsider's view of how contentious discussions herein can sometimes be and further underscores how newcomers are sometimes treated. I am still quite willing to WP:AGF and would simply caution him to make better choices of words. I'm sure he would be willing to apolgize.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised and disappointed that Kgwu24 would distract this discussion with such ridiculous and totally unfounded conjecture. May I humbly suggest that we consider the facts in a mature manner, instead of muddying the water with unsubstantiated imaginings. Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it a bit humorous the way some WP-folk deal with other editors they use WP:AFD, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:OR, WP:BIO, digging through a users contributions like an overly zealous proctologist and many others in their arsenal of weapons to submit their opponents to their will (much the same way I would a challenger in the ring). I say don’t be a WP:dick... I admit I have many flaws, I am a ass sometimes, as well I’m a prankster. I really don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground here in wickipedia (there is a hell of a learning curve; and I’m not getting payed as some people on this site). So If I hurt someone feelings by my word choices let me say I’m WP:SORRY from the bottom of my heart (with sugar on top). Now can we act like grown men with a set of brass balls and not panzy-metrosexul WP:MASTODONS? Because I really don’t give a WP:FUCK.


 * Let me state for the record: I categorically deny that I am John Ng. I categorically deny that I am a student of John Ng. I deny I have ever met John Ng. I deny I am related to John Ng. I deny I have ben hired by John Ng or any of his students. I deny I am affiliated with any of the sources/websites I listed as references. -However over the years I have met a couple of his students and conversed with them at MA events or on kung fu forums (the martial art world is very small at the top). So I know who the man is I know a lot of people/names, big deal... Yes my past acquaintances sparked my originally wanting to merely put a simple footnote on the Ng page. Should I have to feel like a polygraph is necessary to determine my modus operandi? Should every editor have his entire bio on his talk page for others to assume WP:AGF? How about lets stick to the issue at hand is the John Ng page worth keeping? Can someone much more knowledgeable than I help with formatting it to meet WP standards? Has the page with the work myself and gracious others have put into it changed it enough to warrant it being kept, as it has changed dramatically since it was tagged for AFD.


 * P.S. Let me share some knowledge of the code of ethics kung fu practitioners call WUDE. --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There's an assertion of notability, and the sourcing is better now. I verified him owning that martial arts academy. Regarding speculation on the identity of Duchamps_comb, note that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Please stop. Fences and windows (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks to Schmidt for bringing out AGF. I'll do, and sign off from this topic. My last name is Wu, the pinyin equivalent of Ng, thus had more than a passing interest. Looking back, I should have passed at the speed of light(:-)--Kgwu24 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Kgwu24

Comment: The grounds for deletion now appear to have been dealt with. (The grounds were "Non-notable martial arts teacher. Article is continously being re-created by a user who is likely either a student or this person himself.") Do any other concerns remain? Hebrides (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some measure of notability has been established.
 * It is incorrect to describe one re-creation of an article as "continuously being re-created".
 * Tenacity and determination by an editor are not necessarily indicators of ulterior motives, but may simply be a determination to master Wikipedia authoring skills.
 * And the suspected conflict of interest has turned out to be unfounded.
 * Comment I'm not yet impressed. The ICBA site seems to be basically a school that has re-labeled itself an org. and added a handful of schools to its list. It's a variation of the usual Sokeship Council (which I see also makes an appearance there). Calling itself "World Wide" appears to be just fluffery. Ref. 2 simply lists his name as an instructor with one known student. I can't see Ref. 6 but it appears that he participated in a local event in Lexington, Kentucky. Ref. 9 is a web site of unclear independence. Ref. 4 is a poem? Only Refs. 1,3 look like they could be reliable, independent, verifiable sources. Can someone with access to them better explain whether he is mentioned in a passing (or again in a list), or if he is the subject of these works? Is there a verification that he was indeed the main fight choreographer for Snake in the Monkey's Shadow? JJL (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A friend call my attention to this and ask if I can help in Chinese Baidu search, since zh my mother tongue. But aiiya, when I see such show off testorone, and brass balls (I guess he must have at least 3), I would not touch with 10-foot pole!! But there is one curious thing. If you look at the main ref. (#9) and 2nd in External Links, you see that they want to sell you something, DVD’s and all that jazz. What is Wiki policy on sales promotion? Does the page on Bill Gates link to MS sales promotion? Just a dumb question. Btw, I’m female thus plead guilty for no balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.225.254 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe article is well-written but the enthusiasm and the care with which it is presented doesn't overcome the question - why? Article is not really different from lots of others that are being recommended for deletion.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Wiki fans,
 * Delete no reliable sources independent of the subject treat the subject of the BLP in any depth? Then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per our standard at BIO, with helpings of RS thrown in as noted by Bali above. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--Dear Wiki fans, I sincerely ask your pardon for last message (27 May) with no sign-in name. My friend told me it’s rude, so I now register with my real name, for 1st time. I am occasional user of Wiki only, so don’t do editoring, also not good in English. But looking at your discussions turn off me. For example, how can call someone Stalin in such discussions. Scary.--Zhang-ZQ (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Zhang-ZiQing
 * Question: since this debate seems to hinge on notability, has anyone managed to check out the non-web references cited? Hebrides (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2009 (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.