Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Traitorous

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - sources are good for SIGCOV, per Ganbaruby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Traitorous

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Shaolin Traitorous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

De-PRODded with the edit summary "deproded. Article can obviously be improved and de-orphaned"; no sources were added and no improvements were made, of course.

Prior to my PROD, I did as thorough of a BEFORE check as I can for an English speaker and found nothing except trivial mentions in lists and database listings (oh, and pirate sites). No doubt the movie exists, but is it notable per WP:NFILM? Not as far as I can find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Deproder here. Personal attacks don't help. I have added the Chinese name of the movie and de-orphaned the article at the time of the deproding. Minor improvements, I agree, but "no improvements were made, of course" is inaccurate. I have helped substantially improve HK movies articles in the past, and by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed. I wish this can be done for this article, hence my deproding, which as expected is triggering an AfD, which will attract more attention than a PROD and which hopefully will see a poor stub being converted into a decent article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for removing the prod and for your improvements to the article, Underwaterbuffalo (talk · contribs). I agree that for Hong Kong movie articles, "by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed". This is the case here. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Kolma8, I asked Ganbaruby (who commented below, and who can read Chinese) to have a look at Cunard's references, and they've confirmed it constitutes SIGCOV (as opposed to just trivial mentions or ads or something), so I'd like to move for withdrawl - will you strike your vote so I can do so? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Premeditated Chaos, you got it. Kolma8 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 2. I have made improvements to the article and added an English language ref: a PhD thesis that details the movie and uses it as an example across 14 pages. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "大太监". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). 1976-11-27. p. 16. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  2. "大太監打鬥激烈：故事情節無新意" ["Shaolin Traitorous" fights fiercely: the storyline is nothing new]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "因大太監提早公映，上官靈鳳行期大亂，陳觀泰出正名執導，萬事不理賺錢為先". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  4. "「 大太監」穿針、麻雀引線". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-11-25. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  5. "影片趕緊推出，宋廷美感意外". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 3. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  6. "大太監匆匆推出古，王家達田鶴險武鬥，吳思遠聘大狀反禁制令". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 13. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  7. "大太監今公映". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-23. p. 6. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  8. "黃家達與田氏兄弟，幾釀武鬥，似有下文". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 3. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  9. "大太監招待會匆匆上映，上官靈鳳黃家達聯合演". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 20. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  10. "大太監提早映，上官靈鳳趕辦手續，日內來港". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-23. p. 7. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  11. "宋廷美今招待記者，介紹新作「 大太監」". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-21. p. 18. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  12. "張翼拍攝大太監後，轉演反派獲得成功". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 14. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shaolin Traitorous (simplified Chinese: 大太监; traditional Chinese: 大太監) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've reviewed the Chinese-language sources above, and I can confirm that there is WP:SIGCOV here. You could build a "Production" header here, and also use the review in the second source for a "Critical reception". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:40, 26 August 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.