Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Ghost

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ghost

Hello Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a blog or portal site. This article contains only plot of movie. It is in personal blogs reviewing movies or search engines that We can search these kind of contents. And I think this article can be a movie spoiler. There are not only plot that can stimulate audience who are curious about this movie or don't watch this movie yet but also ending of this movie although this movie contains unsuspected ending. If wikipedia permit kind of this article, wikipedia no longer encyclopedia but just a blog. Choi Hyun Hee (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not speak or read Korean, but I am finding quite a bit of coverage using Google Translate like this source. It looks like the film performed very well in Korea and other overseas countries and I'd be surprised if there were not reviews out there. As far as plot spoilers go, Wikipedia does not keep spoilers off of its sites per WP:SPOILER. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep First and foremost that's not what "Wikipedia is not a blog" actually means: Wikipedia articles can use some blogs that are distinctly proven reliable as sources. The current structure, albeit lacking at places, is well on its way to be encyclopedic. Sure, a number of the nom's complaints are true (lack of critical reception, plus the not-so-articulate language in the Plot section is really getting to me), these are surmountable problems which I am encouraging anyone who has the ability (to read Korean, which I don't) to go fix it (phrase better, cut down on plot, add critical reviews, etc.). Notability is not a problem here IMO as per current cites, with similar sentiments as with Tokyogirl. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Is the article in great condition? No, not really. Is the article's topic notable? Indeed it is. While the article needs fixing, that is not grounds for deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The page, like many on here, is not perfect but it does have enough good sources to show that it is in fact notable. We don't delete notable pages just because they are currently in need of improvement. Peachywink (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep even thought the movie is showed in 2010, there is many conversation and talk in Korean movie website. and 3 million people watched this movie. this article has notability so this article must keep.--Berlinuno (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. "Hollywood takes liking to Korean films" (ref: http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/culture/2013/07/135_139638.html), but Choi Hyun Hee don't. Really sorry for her. Nevertheless, a section about how ghosts were rendered in Korean litterature (from Samguk Sagi onwards) is perhaps missing in the article. Dear providers of content, seize your brush ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2015 (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.