Talk:Michael Rogge

Dramatic overstatement
So far, after feverish work by an IP editor, we have an amateur home-movie maker who made one "commissioned" (sources on this very poor - station not identified, no independence of subject - appears to be mere repetition of something related by subject), who has a corpus of 200 minutes of mostly tourist-type, expat footage taken over half a century ago and nothing since. How on Earth does that support the suggestion that he should be labelled as a "filmmaker"? His profession was/is in banking. WP cannot put forward the subject in this highly selective, fawning manner. If he made one or two documentaries about Hong Kong that are significant for no better reason than that they are old, say so. This whole thing is hugely overcooked. sirlanz 01:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, his first career was in banking, but according to his ex-colleague's Japan book and his own account, he left it within a decade or so (that was almost 6 decades ago) and moved on to independent cinematography. He is at best an amateur filmmaker IMHO. Apparently, the respective government organizations or TV channels (and not to forget, his viewers on YouTube) have found more value in his work than you do. While I welcome constructive feedback, I also hope that one day, you will realize how much you may have discouraged people to stay away from contributing to WP. Sahrudayan (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just a repeat of the IDONTLLIKEIT deletion discussion occurring at the same time, so anyone reading this later on is encouraged to read the archived deletion discussion.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)