Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Lo (businessman)


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 17:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Calvin Lo (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A prolifically deleted page about a subject shown not to meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria at AfD. There's quite a lot of poorly sourced philanthropic puffery in this particular incarnation and some ugly citation bombing going on. Clearly the hand of PR has played a part in creating this entry. Icicle City (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hong Kong,  and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep This entry is a direct translation of the Chinese version. Yes, would need some change in content but the subject is notable and famous in Asian region. JCmainly (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a direct translation of an article that already exists on another language Wikipedia is not a keep rationale in and of itself, per WP:WAX. What has to be shown is that the article is properly sourced as passing the English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Agree with @JCmainly on the translation. Simonriley1994 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: What zhwp has articles on or not means absolutely nothing here, as each project has different notability standards. So can we get some discussion based on enwp content standards, please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a few substantial sources about him already in the article. Admittedly there's a fluff component to them but they meet the criteria for notability. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Based on an extensive research on the sources provided, most of them are adhering to notability standards of enwp. Some of the platforms are weak but within the guidelines. I would also like to improve on content, but surely meet the standard of enwp notability. Simonriley1994 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2023 (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.