Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Lo (businessman) (2nd nomination)


 * 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__. Some participants pointed out that the notability situation changed significantly during the discussion, with the nominator !voting to keep late in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Calvin Lo (businessman)
AfDs for this article:


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

Appears to be largely a hoax supported by advertorial sources and paid editors. Forbes magazine has an article about the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire]. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hong Kong,  and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: hmm, would the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire make him notable? He is definitely note a billionaire, but if his hoax amounts to some notability, I could see this as getting kept. However, even so, it is just one event, and by WP:BLP1E this article should be deleted.


 * On a side note, there are some sources that note this person (as a billionaire): Reuters Yahoo Tinance Financial Times BBC–Sport I wonder if these (potential hoax attempts?) would make him still notable? My WP experience doesn't lead me to a clear decision. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ya, this one is interesting. Yahoo is just a newsfeed from a PR content farm (Yahoo is completely useless these days), and the BBC Sports peice is quoting other reports that are discredited in the Forbes piece (the net worth estimate by "Forbes Middle East", which is apparently just a "independently run licensed edition" which fails to disclose paid content). I did have high hopes for Reuters and the Financial Times, though. Those are the real deal. I sent out e-mails last night to see if they'll revise in light of the Forbes material. Financial Times responded very quickly and professionally - they're looking at it. No response from Reuters yet.
 * I think clearly the original article is non-notable and should have been deleted at the previous AFD, which was manipulated by now-blocked paid socks. To your point, though, is there notability in the hoax that (apparently) fooled a lot of solid news agencies and, frankly, Wikipedia? Probably needs more coverage to be a notable hoax. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update before weekend: Financial Times did pull their article, for now at least. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, after thought. You're left with a non-notable biography of someone who's working hard to apparently fabricate press releases. Embarrassing Forbes, the Financial Times and Reuters is interesting, but I'm not convinced it all that notable. If the article is retained, I'd recommend extended-confirmed protection, given the level of socking and paid manipulation here. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Update: Struck vote, the volume of secondary sources popping up in the last few days is pretty strong. I would absolutely ignore any source prior to the Forbes material. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject may be an aspiring businessman but so are millions of other people. This is not a valid reason for having an article on anyone. The page can always be recreated if the subject gains actual notability in the long run. Keivan.f  Talk 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I don't often comment, but I have been following this story. Mr. Lo undoubtedly wants this page removed, but I believe there is a strong argument for keep or, at the very least, we should wait to see how much further coverage emerges. Three arguments: 1] there is significant coverage of Mr. Lo in top-tier titles, certainly getting us over the traditional Notability Criteria, even if a proportion of that was secured on a fraudulent basis; 2] given the amount of historic false and exaggerated coverage, I think it's important that the Wikipedia page exists to round up the 'truth' and remedy the significant fradulent material that still exists on Google, i.e., Reuters; and 3] there has already been a round of follow-up coverage in a number of titles following the Forbes report, including The New York Post, Vanity Fair, Formula 1 News, and Benzinga. I expect that more might follow. This is a unique case, but I see the argument for keep here. 84.19.48.250 (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Notability (people), which says: "People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in  that are,  of each other, and .If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Sources   The article notes: "Lo, Regina and Francis’ only child, was born in Vancouver but spent his first nine years in Hong Kong before returning to Canada, where he later attended Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went back to Hong Kong in 1999 and began working with his mom at R.E. Lee International, rising to managing director in 2003 and eventually becoming CEO." The article notes: "But the pitching was persistent, and as time went on, a slew of media outlets including the BBC, CNBC, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, the Financial Times, the Independent, Nikkei Asia, Reuters and the South China Morning Post ran stories calling Lo a billionaire, showcasing his views on everything from champagne to crypto. Many of these stories cited Forbes as a source, and one of Lo’s publicists sent emails claiming he was on the Forbes Billionaires list. An article had even run on the website of Forbes Middle East, one of our independently run licensed editions, that called him a billionaire; upon investigation, that “article” turned out to be a paid “advertorial” from Lo’s team, and it has since been taken down. He has never been on the Forbes list, and it’s past time to set the record straight."   <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Calvin Lo to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Weak Keep - I think the nature of his notability, and sources, have changed significantly over the last few days. Previously the article was based on unreliable sources of questionable accuracy about a billionaire.  Now it is looking much more like his notability is the man who, it is alleged, attempted to con the world about being a billionaire.  This may, just, be adequate to keep the article.  I am not withdrawing the nomination though. See what everyone thinks.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: we should wait a few weeks to see whether he has any notability beyond this. The real thing we should be investigating is how this article was created. If he paid lawyers and journalists to fake his credentials, it is quite likely he was willing to create an article for himself and we should determine how. Yes, the FT printed his name, but someone had to create the article. 04:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A good compromise may be to delete the article and move the content to the forbes billionaires article, or to retitle the article Forbes Billionarie Hoax. It is an interesting hoax, if the man himself is not notable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Appears to be a case of WI1E where the subject has recently been covered due to allegations that he's faked or inflated his wealth. Most of the sources cited above are based on the Forbes article, whilst others are simply derivatives of self-initiated interviews. He may have notability in Hong Kong or China (for non-English sources), but globally, unless he gets covered for another event, it may not be enough to sustain retaining this article. --Donaldherald (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.