Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Enforcer

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. v/r - T P 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Enforcer[edit]

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

Created over 3 years ago and still has no sources to meet WP:NOTFILM. Prod removed without either comment or notification. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Non-English - way before the internet, so (non-trivial) sources via google will be hard to come by. Enough sources so to verify the existance. But a German source proves that those sources must exist, even if we can't google them. a) it refers to interviews, production details and boxoffice data (19th of 1972 - presumably in Hong Kong). In my view there is enaugh indication that sources *must* exist even if we can't put our finger on them (yet) - Maybe get our chinese friends to help. Agathoclea (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, I see no basis, as yet, for this keep !vote. The German source that you quote states (unless my German translation is fundamentally inaccurate which, of course, it may well be) that there is "no legal, licensed publication of "The Black Enforcer" - either regionally or internationally.". Consequently, we can't say "that sources *must* exist". If they exist, and they meet our notability requirements, that's fine but all we know, so far, is that the film is verified to have been made (as are thousands of non-notable films) but that is not enough. TerriersFan (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Non-English, pre-internet title. I am in agreement that the link offered by Agathoclea above indicates that the film by The Shaw Brothers was at one time the subject of critical commentary and review long before the internet.[1] This allows a resonable presumption that the film met WP:NF way-back-then, and does not mean we delete simply because the alluded sources predate the internet or are difficult to find. In agreement with User:Agathoclea, it's time to enlist the assistance of the Mandarin and Cantonese speakers/readers with access to sources not available here in the West forty years later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shaw Brothers films are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A film that was most likely notable pre-internet. I am a deletionist at heart, but this is a 1972 Asian film. This is an English language based encyclopedia. Does it really come as a surprise that we can't find any good sources? Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (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.