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 . Girth Summit _(blether) 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

Calvin Lo [ edit ]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} .

Calvin Lo ( edit ?| talk ?| history ?| protect ?| delete ?| links ?| watch ?| logs ?| views ) ? ( View log  · Stats )

( Find sources:  Google ( books  · news  · scholar  · free images  · WP?refs )? · FENS  · JSTOR  · TWL )

After much debate and months of coming back and forth to research, I fail to see how Lo is notable. Yes, he's a billionaire which is impressive but after an in depth look at the sources, they all appear to be press releases, self published or guest posts (and black hat SEO.) I attempted earlier today to clean up and remove sources that were unreliable and was left with, well nothing independent. This is also very clearly paid for spam. An additional search for sources revealed nothing independent - just your typical Yahoo press releases and "partner" postings and black hat SEO. Praxidicae ( talk ) 13:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep Delete as per Praxidicae 's table. After looking at the main sources, I think the article meets WP:GNG . While some sources certainly paint Lo in a positive light, this doesn't inherently violate WP:IS and is not terribly uncommon for tabloid-like sources reporting on celebrities. There's no evidence that I can see of black hat SEO or the first few sources being self-published. This article seems to violate both WP:GNG and WP:IS . AviationFreak ( talk ) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
  • Which sources would those be? Because all I can find are blatant misrepresentations, like the first source which is a brand post (aka a sponsored post paid for) Praxidicae ( talk ) 15:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
    • I was looking at the first two sources listed. Is there any evidence that the first source is a commissioned brand post? AviationFreak ( talk ) 15:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
      • AviationFreak literally the top of the article states that it's a brand post. Also see below:
        • Praxidicae Apologies. I missed the various disclaimers in the sources. Thanks for your understanding! AviationFreak ( talk ) 16:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete As per nom, and to add to the table. Checked Web Archive . Didn't see any history for the Readers Digest link, so it's possible that it wasn't there in the first place. ? Infogapp1 ( talk ) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/322745	brand post (aka sponsored for pay)	anything that has to be paid for to be said to push the "philantropist" doesn't meet RS		? No
https://in.style.yahoo.com/billionaire-investor-calvin-lo-190151014.html	as per usual for this part of yahoo, it's just sponsored PR			? No
https://londonlovesbusiness.com/the-secretive-billionaire-calvin-lo/	nope, this is a pay for guest post site, used for blackhat SEO	see above		? No
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/inside-the-world-of-life-insurance-brokers/	see above, same thing, completely unreliable.			? No
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/inside-the-world-of-life-insurance-brokers/	same as above			? No
http://www.tntmagazine.com/entertainment/games-and-tech/how-the-wealthy-uses-social-media	as per their about section, this is user generated/submitted			? No
https://newswire.net/newsroom/blog-post/00118664-hidden-billionaire-funding-growth.html	press release			? No
https://www.retailnews.asia/hong-kongs-most-under-the-radar-billionaire-calvin-lo/	laughably bad attempt at passing off as legitimate journalism, it's not independent and it's just more PR			? No
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~	~	it's a passing mention in some generic MILL coverage	? No
https://star.ettoday.net/news/1542326	this is a straight up gossip piece			? No
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~ same as 9	~		? No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2019/08/14/how-new-technology-affects-our-consumption-of-art-and-media/#2e34a0866eb2	contributor piece			? No
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~	~	exactly the same as 9 and 11	? No
https://expressdigest.com/calvin-los-long-distance-philanthropy-succeeds/	all you need to do is look at their about us section to see why this is completely, laughably unreliable			? No
http://www.netnewsledger.com/2020/02/25/r-e-lee-capital-ceo-calvin-los-net-worth-reaches-us1-7-billion/	this is a blackhat seo site trying to pass itself off as legtimate and has been blacklisted			? No
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life/the-most-impressive-acts-of-charity-by-famous-people	would love to detail this but it doesn't exist in archives or elsewhere, so i have doubts it ever existed to begin wtih			? Unknown
https://vulcanpost.com/655165/asian-billionaire-philanthropist/	not a reliable source in teh slightest, accepts paid for pr without differentiating and cannot be trusted for being independent			? No
https://www.ibtimes.sg/most-impressive-acts-charity-by-famous-people-45093	~ i have doubts about its independence	~ the fact that they don't identify in author leads me to believe this is a generic puff piece with no real editorial review		? No
https://www.buzzfeed.com/debbiehuey/billionaire-giving-backsilently-6i9myngwpf	as is well established buzzfeed community posts are not rs and therefor cannot be considered to be actually independent			? No
https://www.econotimes.com/Understanding-new-generation-of-charitable-Chinese-Calvin-Los-long-distance-philanthropy-succeeds-1582946	user submitted piece as noted at the bottom			? No
https://innewsweekly.com/billionaires-stepping-up-to-fight-covid-19/		no indication of an editorial board or oversight		? No
https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/hong-kong-billionaire-calvin-lo.html		as has been discussed elsewhere, luxuo is not rs		? No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} .

Praxidicae ( talk ) 15:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep Many of the sources used are the same sources used in many other Wikipedia articles. Sure, they may not be first tier publications, but should not be struck out conveniently. For example econotimes.com, accusation of “user submitted as noted in the bottom” is in fact a very common disclaimer used by many big publications. Another example is comment on ibtimes.com.sg, “have doubts about its independence”. Just because it’s published under the IB Times SG Desk, it’s unfair to write this off. Or the Taipei Times article, you said “its a passing mention in some generic MILL coverage”. But if you are aware, Taipei times is one of the most prominent media outlet in Taiwan and extremely reputable. We should not discriminate just because?especially because?this Wikipedia page is about an Asian. The content is useful especially for those in Asia and does not deserve to be deleted. Taipoqueen ( talk ) 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

I'm not going to explain again why those sources are not appropriate in the context of this article, yet again, but I would appreciate if you would please redact your personal attack here: Taipei times is one of the most prominent media outlet in Taiwan and extremely reputable. We should not discriminate just because?especially because?this Wikipedia page is about an Asian. Identifying non-notable people and nominating it for deletion is not discrimination and insinuating as much is offensive. Praxidicae ( talk ) 16:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep He has coverage by the number of Local News Channels Some from them are here 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . He also has Coverage by local langue new resources you can check here 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 . All the resources are already used by other live Wikipedia Pages. Worrieredits ( talk ) 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC). ? Worrieredits ( talk &#32 ;? contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) BLOCKED for WP:PROMO . Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete This article reads like it was created by someone connected to him for PR. The persistent sockpuppetry in the edits raises a lot of questions too. It's also suspicious that a lot of the keep votes on this page are from accounts created very recently, several apparently for the express purpose of voting on this nomination. ? YgFZAcpJUJ ( talk ) 16:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep Certainly meets WP:GNG I see many non-trivial coverage which shows that he is respected and noteworthy. For example, International Business Times is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. Should be kept if unaffected by previous sockpuppetry issue. JonasLiam ( talk ) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC). ? JonasLiam ( talk ? contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete ? Per nom rationale. Celestina007 ( talk ) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete The table compiled by Praxidicae includes just one source (the listicle in the International Business Times) that might possibly establish notability. I strongly share Praxidicae's doubts about this source's independence, and I'll add that, per WP:GNG , it borderline fails the "significant coverage" requirement: the listicle covers one single act of charity, and is mostly just a short bio that I strongly suspect is based on the Wikipedia article being discussed (a prime example of citogenesis ). A cursory web search does not reveal the existence of better sources to establish this person's notability. Ealuscerwen ( talk ) 01:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep The references provided by Worrieredits are from Chines Local language news sources that possibly establish notability per WP:GNG , all the sources are national TV Channels and Newspapers which consider Reliable to cover the notability of a person. MNALHR ( talk ) 04:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC) BLOCKED for WP:PROMO . Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep He is a notable businessman and philanthropist in Asia. Though may not be from top tier publications, he passes WP:GNG as there are some reliable sources used. EddieKear ( talk ) 13:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC). ? EddieKear ( talk ? contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC). [ reply ]

• Note to closer I strongly suspect this nomination is subject to WP:CANVASSing . Several very new accounts with minimal edit counts voted "keep", contrary to the consensus that is slowly emerging among more experienced editors that there exists few if any significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources for this person. Ealuscerwen ( talk ) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

And additionally, I want to note for all these meat puppets, this also appears to at least partially be a hoax. "R. E. Lee Capital" may exist on their own website, but I see no evidence that the company is legitimate nor that it has ever received any coverage. Every single source in a search for this are (self generated) press releases and fake news sites. Not to mention the high improbability of a China based company being named after Robert E. Lee . Praxidicae ( talk ) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

R.E. Lee Capital check this out too... Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Delete . No SIGCOV in any proper quality independent source suitable for a BLP. Lots of references in junk/promo sources (as listed in the table above). I suspect that this article is PAID (hence the number of SPAs at this AfD), and is part of the subject developing their own platform (and using Wikipedia for PROMO purposes). Given his family's wealth and status, perhaps he will merit a BLP in the future, but he has no real notability now. Britishfinance ( talk ) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete Fails to meet the sourcing standards we require for a BLP. If there could be an article here, we'd have to blow this one out of the way to make room for it . XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep ^Talk 08:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]

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.