Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel So (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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel So[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As User:Finngall has shown last year, there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject of this autobiography. Roy17 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roy17 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier nomination. Sources added since the last discussion are not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is an option if you agree somebody who produced notable films doesn't means he/she is notable. Singlebird (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Singlebird: A subject is not "notable by association". An author may be notable by Wikipedia standards, but that does not mean each individual book by them is notable. A band may be notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the individual members are. Some of So's films may have passed our notability standards, but what we need is multiple reliable and independent sources covering him. Not his films, him, as an individual. The provided sources are the HKMDB, which provides only a bare list of his films, IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source because it can be edited by anyone without attribution, an Amazon link to a graphic novel he wrote, and a bunch of links which do not mention him at all. One would think that a director of notable films would have more verifiable information available about him out there somewhere, but without that verifiability from reliable sources there is literally nothing upon which we base a proper encyclopedia article on him. The previous AfD did not establish him as notable, it was effectively dismissed due to lack of participation over several weeks, and the editor who closed it explicitly stated that the result should not be prejudicial against a new nomination at any time. If better sources can be found, that's great--we can analyze those and I might change my opinion based on the new information. But the article as it stands at this writing does not meet our standards. --Finngall ^talk 02:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Hong Kong do have a official film search engine developed by Hong Kong Film Archive which support film director, screenwriter and actor/attress searching (not for the entire crew search), but it is Chinese based, use English for searching may not receive a fully search result. And the link of the search result page is hidden which is not able to copy and paste as wiki source. But you can always go there to double check information if you have doubts about HKMDB. For example every single film written by Samuel So can be find in the above Hong Kong Film Archive search engine: https://mcms.lcsd.gov.hk/Search/hkFilm/enquire!?&request_locale=zh_HK BTW, in my opinion, HKMDB is reliable. I believe informations inside are manage by administrator. May be not as professional as wiki, but they do provide high quality information for years. Singlebird (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Singlebird: Fair enough, but even if we assume that these are valid, that still only adds up to "He exists and he made films". Are there news articles about him, in any language? --Finngall ^talk 15:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Well, if "news articles" is the only way to measure notability (but not notable works), l agree to delete his page. Singlebird (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professionals does matter: "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 an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals) Samuel So (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, authors, filmmakers and other creative professionals are likely to be notable. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Singlebird (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel So: I'm not arguing that Mr. So doesn't meet the WP:CREATIVE criterion cited here. But meeting this criterion means nothing if there are not sufficient reliably-sourced references. Cases in point: I was recently involved in another discussion regarding an article on a venture capital firm. They had lots of money, they provided funding for multiple notable companies with articles of their own, but the available sources only ever mentioned them in passing in articles whose focus on these other companies--there weren't any sources focusing on the company itself, so while you would have thought they ought to have an article, we didn't really have any material upon which to base that article, so there was really no other option but to delete. Another was a biography on a person who was famous enough within his field that it came as a surprise that there weren't good sources available, but again, no reliable sources, no article. Until he died, and the resulting obituaries provided ample sourcing for the article to be recreated. We've come up with a dizzying array of criteria for who and what merits an article here, but in the end, it all comes down to verifiability, and without that, there's nothing. --Finngall ^talk 16:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: I agree this autobiography may failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special_cases). But if we look inside the Notability (people) page in Chinese Wikipedia (as Samuel So is a Hong Kong creative professional), qualified film director (導演), screenwriter (編劇) or writer (作家) does meet the notability standard, character collection standard (人物收錄條件) and the independent page collection standard (獨立條目的收錄標準) at the same time. "Sufficient reliably-sourced reference" is not a must. Samuel So (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel So: Each Wikipedia sets its own rules and standards, therefore the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not in itself justify the existence of a corresponding Wikipedia article in another language. --Finngall ^talk 21:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Chinese Wikipedia focus on measuring if a person is a qualified writer or screenwriter with six criteria in total (you may not find anything like this in English Wikipedia).... this make perfect sense, but I won't go further if you don't want me to do so. Samuel So (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is simple: If we agree Samuel So meet the WP:CREATIVE criterion cited here, then he is likely to be notable (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria) , keeping the tag of notability in his page is not appropriate, and according to the guideline of failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special_cases), delete his page is not an option. Singlebird (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall:Following these guidelines will get the same results as those who follow the Chinese Wikipedia guidelines, even though each Wikipedia has its own rules and standards. Please consider! Singlebird (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to meet either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. He has not created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, nor has he originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Sun8908 _Talk 10:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun8908: In WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, we may always argue if a person is notable enough or not, but not for creative professionals in WP:Creative. In WP:Creative, we may argue if a person is a professional authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, or other creative professional, instead of judging if a creative professional is notable enough, as people are likely to be notable if they meet the standard of creative professional (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria). Singlebird (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Singlebird: I think you misunderstood the policy. WP:CREATIVE doesn't state that all professional authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, or other creative professional can have their Wikipedia article. Instead, they can be considered to be notable if they meet one of the four criteria. Currently, there is no indication that the subject, Samuel So, has met the criteria. Sun8908 _Talk 06:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun8908: I cannot agree with you and I have no further comment. Thank you! Singlebird (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Samuel So and Singlebird accounts have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samuel So. --Finngall ^talk 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.