Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Lo
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alex Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person mostly fails significant coverage, most of the references are PR and social media and YouTube links. Systumm (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Film, and Television. Systumm (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (original author) Hello, appreciate your feedback here and would like to address your concerns. This individual clearly meets notability requirements as discussed in the "Creative Professionals" guidelines. They were the creator of two works that received significant coverage in periodical articles and reviews, many of which are referenced on this page.
- With regards to references:
- 1. There are some PR/press releases referenced, however these are only used to verify basic facts. Additional references, including to discussion of the subject in a recent book, have been added to further meet significant coverage standards.
- 2. No social media links are referenced.
- 3. Two Youtube links that were referenced were used to access episodes uploaded by the station (KMVT, a reliable uploader and the content's originator). This is also supported by secondary reference (reference 6) However, given your feedback, I have updated and improved those citations to use the
{{cite episode}}template. Jdweikler (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) - And just for further clarification, here are two references that most clearly meet the general inclusion threshold as outlined here (at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.)
- Reference 1: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/unconditional-documentary-screens-at-the-white-house/
- Reference 14: Lui, Richard (2021). Enough About Me. HarperCollins/Zondervan. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0310362395. Jdweikler (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- I created a source assesment table as well to further clarify:
- Jdweikler (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)- I wouldn't count the first "green" source in the table above as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Green links used are about projects he's worked on, nothing about him as an individual. Sadly, there just isn't sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, can you please clarify your comment -- I don't believe that is accurate. The first source in green has 300+ words about the subject and his work. The second green source has 550+ words about the subject as an individual.
- Jdweikler (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- The one ending in .edu is a university website, we generally prefer not to use sources where the person has an affiliation. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Understand there may be a preference for non-.edu sources, but that source is still is discussing the subject as an individual at length, a secondary/independent source, and nonopinionated/factual. I think that source, combined with the extensive coverage of the individual in a widely-published book should meet significant coverage. And as previously stated, the individual clearly meets notability as per WP:FILMMAKER Jdweikler (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The edu sources are not independent as they are alumni news from his alma mater. I am not seeing "extensive coverage" nor even enough reliable WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or meet WP:FILMMAKER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- 2600:1017:A801:CB75:30AD:D33C:500E:2F31 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Respectfully, the subject very clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER. As stated in WP:FILMMAKER Criteria (#3), an individual can be considered notable if: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". The subject of this article has created (as the producer) two well-known, major films that were widely distributed by Universal Pictures (the most recent of which was screened at the U.S. White House). Both have also been the subject of multiple periodical reviews and articles. Therefore the standard for WP:FILMMAKER is very clearly met.
- Jdweikler (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- 2600:1017:A801:CB75:30AD:D33C:500E:2F31 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- The person that would meet it for both works is Richard Liu, and not Lo. He was one of four co-producers (two of whom do not seem to meet notability either), and co-produced the second with a host of executive producers. The coverage on both works don't focus his role, unless it's in his alma mater's alumni news, and instead focuses on Liu, so the indication is that the role he played as a co-producer was not major in the way that FILMMAKER would dictate. Finally, all of your edits have been in relation to Alex Lo and things he's worked on. If you have a WP:COI, you must declare it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, the policy standard is for the person to have "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Being one of the two filmmakers who worked on the film to be invited to the White House for their work would seem to indicate that. And also as stated above, there are additional sources (including multiple pages in a major book, that discuss his work. Jdweikler (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- White House invites are not a great indicator of notability as usually it's a group of people. From what I can tell, Lo did not write or direct and the referencing on both works focuses on other contributors. Generally, the criteria for creatives in in relation to the creative side of the work and not co-producing. Additionally, the "major book" is by Richard Lui, the director of both documentaries that Lo was a co-producer on, and that he only is mentioned in only 2 of 256 total pages (and back-to-back, likely indicating one mention) in his book would suggest a less-than-major role in addition to the reference not being completely independent. Also the book never even hit on any of the prominent bestseller lists, so definitely not "major". Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The book and other sources discuss his role on the films, which include responsibility for: selecting the individuals to be profiled/casting, coordinating production in the field, co-directing animated sequences, and overseeing postproduction and marketing. That too would indicate a very major role.
- The book that references him does so several other times although they are trivial mentions. So I'm leaving those out and focusing just on the 550+ words that discussed his work. Jdweikler (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- White House invites are not a great indicator of notability as usually it's a group of people. From what I can tell, Lo did not write or direct and the referencing on both works focuses on other contributors. Generally, the criteria for creatives in in relation to the creative side of the work and not co-producing. Additionally, the "major book" is by Richard Lui, the director of both documentaries that Lo was a co-producer on, and that he only is mentioned in only 2 of 256 total pages (and back-to-back, likely indicating one mention) in his book would suggest a less-than-major role in addition to the reference not being completely independent. Also the book never even hit on any of the prominent bestseller lists, so definitely not "major". Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, the policy standard is for the person to have "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Being one of the two filmmakers who worked on the film to be invited to the White House for their work would seem to indicate that. And also as stated above, there are additional sources (including multiple pages in a major book, that discuss his work. Jdweikler (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The person that would meet it for both works is Richard Liu, and not Lo. He was one of four co-producers (two of whom do not seem to meet notability either), and co-produced the second with a host of executive producers. The coverage on both works don't focus his role, unless it's in his alma mater's alumni news, and instead focuses on Liu, so the indication is that the role he played as a co-producer was not major in the way that FILMMAKER would dictate. Finally, all of your edits have been in relation to Alex Lo and things he's worked on. If you have a WP:COI, you must declare it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 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.