Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Lok


 * 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. No convincing argument for keeping put forward. Sufficient consensus to delete. Michig (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan Lok

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly promotional article lacking reliable sources. Key claims to fame are not independently verifiable and seem to revolve around claims made by the subject. Most sources are primary or closely related PR. While it may be true that he has been invited as speaker and appeared on TV, there's little reliable, independent coverage *about* the subject as opposed to what is *output* by the subject. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Content and article meets WP:GNG criteria of wikipedia. The article is about a notable subject. 64.231.242.134 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — 64.231.242.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep : no part of the article is promotional in nature. The article is a simple biography of a person who is notable on 3 counts: as a martial artist, as a business founder and as an author. The article in no way promotes or puts the person in good light and only describes his career and life history in a factual manner. We should not be using the deletion option to address any such issue but I do suggest that nominator point out what in the article is promotional to follow WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The subject has written atleast 9 books which are in their selves good citations and make him notable. A google search shows that many reliable references are present (some of which are already in the article). --Rubyking27 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of user Danthemanlok who created an original version of this article. See below. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly does not meet notability requirements as a martial artist WP:MANOTE. Don't think WP:NAUTHOR is met either.PRehse (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Sockpuppet investigations/Danthemanlok pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The article creator is also the subject of the article himself, which means this is a case of WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Added WP:COI notices to Dan Lok and Talk:Dan Lok. Newslinger (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Week Keep: Person is covered in reliable sources such as ABC, NBC, and Fox news which prove notability of Dan Lok, therefore the article should be kept. 24.17.167.248 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC) — 24.17.167.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi there, thank for your view. The claim that he appeared on those TV stations is based on a press-release by the subject so we cannot independently verify this. What is interesting though, the one show that was picked up by several networks, "America’s PremierExperts®" is an interview style. A look at their website tells us their mission is "To showcase Experts who are dedicated to spreading knowledge and awareness in their field while making significant contributions to their industry and the marketplace as a whole. In exchange for the knowledge these experts contribute, America’s PremierExperts® is dedicated to promoting them in their field of expertise, by offering business owners, entrepreneurs, professional speakers, teachers, lecturers, authors, professionals and corporate CEOs exclusive opportunities for further exposure and growth in the marketplace." Digging a tad deeper, it seems that "America's PremierExperts" is owned or managed by "CelebritySites" an Orlando based marketing firm and content provider. I think it's safe to assume that we are dealing with TV advertorial contents. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep for now: I see the weak aspects of the sourcing of the article and have read the above debate and Jake's explanation of sources. It is a good idea to keep the article for now and if more sources are not available in future, it can be renominated. However, I would like to see if the article can develop if given a chance as the bibliography section of the person rings some notability bells to me. Talking about TV coverage, TV coverage does not need verification by news sources, infact TV coverage is a secondary source in itself and therefore should be taken as WP:RS. It is an assumption that the coverage is advertorial which we should not take at face value and give the article six months (which is the normal time before an article should ideally be renominated) to see if it can be improved. 50.100.174.75 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC) — 50.100.174.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Not notable. Article written by subject - blatant WP:SPIP. Hiernonymous (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A distinct lack of notability. Citations to promo pieces in magazines like Life as a Human and Jet-Set. Some cited sources in the article don't even mention Dan Lok.  The article may not be written in a promotional way, but the intent to promote is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2018 (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.