- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator (
Non-admin closure)
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per
WP:MOVIE.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
14:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the non-notable sequel to this non-notable film:
-
The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks 2 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE Withdrawn by nominator --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably Delete- Are there guidelines that discuss how foreign films should be treated? It's tough, as an American, to determine how notable this film was in China Bali88 ( talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- We use the same guideline for non-English films as we do for English-language ones. The English-language Wikipedia is not for English-only topics. Under WP:NONENG and WP:CSB, we treat foreign-language topics just like we do English-language ones. Film notability, even if only in and to someplace like China, is not dependent upon Western release nor upon Western coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Traditional Chinese:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Pinyin (with tone marks):(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Pinyin (without tone marks): (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per meeting WP:NF though coverage in reliable sources, and coverage (no matter the country in which it is covered) IS the governing criteria. We do not care if the coverage for a Chinese film is not English as long as it has received coverage. Suitable start class. Project and article will benefit from expansion from Chinese-reading Wikipedians, but not through outright deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfies the general notability guideline. Sources are as solid as they come in that part of the world and by definition reliable. Philg88 ♦ talk 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Schmidt's analysis, multiple reliable sources, nonsense nom. Cavarrone 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I can't formally withdraw the nomination because Bali88 supported delete, but I now see that there is coverage of these films under the alternate title "Golden Lotus" (which wasn't originally indicated as an alternate title in the articles). --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- With his admission above that he is unsure of how to determine notability for a non-American film, User:Bali88 has been invited back to this discussion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw if everyone else thought it was notable. I wasn't sure how notable this film was overseas. Keep Bali88 ( talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (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.
- 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 Withdrawn by nominator (
Non-admin closure)
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per
WP:MOVIE.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
14:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the non-notable sequel to this non-notable film:
-
The Forbidden Legend Sex & Chopsticks 2 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE Withdrawn by nominator --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably Delete- Are there guidelines that discuss how foreign films should be treated? It's tough, as an American, to determine how notable this film was in China Bali88 ( talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- We use the same guideline for non-English films as we do for English-language ones. The English-language Wikipedia is not for English-only topics. Under WP:NONENG and WP:CSB, we treat foreign-language topics just like we do English-language ones. Film notability, even if only in and to someplace like China, is not dependent upon Western release nor upon Western coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Traditional Chinese:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Pinyin (with tone marks):(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Pinyin (without tone marks): (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per meeting WP:NF though coverage in reliable sources, and coverage (no matter the country in which it is covered) IS the governing criteria. We do not care if the coverage for a Chinese film is not English as long as it has received coverage. Suitable start class. Project and article will benefit from expansion from Chinese-reading Wikipedians, but not through outright deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfies the general notability guideline. Sources are as solid as they come in that part of the world and by definition reliable. Philg88 ♦ talk 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Schmidt's analysis, multiple reliable sources, nonsense nom. Cavarrone 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I can't formally withdraw the nomination because Bali88 supported delete, but I now see that there is coverage of these films under the alternate title "Golden Lotus" (which wasn't originally indicated as an alternate title in the articles). --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- With his admission above that he is unsure of how to determine notability for a non-American film, User:Bali88 has been invited back to this discussion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw if everyone else thought it was notable. I wasn't sure how notable this film was overseas. Keep Bali88 ( talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (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.