Deletion of John Ng

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I agree with the assessment of oI, 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: 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 ??  There's absolutely no foundation in fact... only a supposition that the author, an editor since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Duchamps_comb 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:AGF)