Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperfect Sculpture

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. PRODded, but literally no one is contesting this after three relists. If someone identifies sourcing, happy to provide the history down the line. Star Mississippi 02:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperfect Sculpture

[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)

Honestly trying to see if anyone else has better luck with a WP:BEFORE search with English-language name or the Chinese one. Even the Baidu Baike article that used to be linked on this page cited more news articles on a lawsuit related to this series than reviews. I found one (1) review through Google Scholar under the Chinese name that refused to load, so I can't determine if it's WP:SIGCOV or reliable. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist one more time. Already PROD'd, can't use Soft Deletion. There needs to be more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: Films and Chinese is well outside my area, but from outside: does it matter if the available references are mostly about a lawsuit caused by the series? A series can possibly be notable for causing a big argument about who owned rights, as much as for what the critics thought of it?? Elemimele (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: a lack of references about the subject itself means the subject fails criteria for a standalone article. If secondary sources nigh exclusively talk about an event associated with the subject, only the event (and not the subject) qualifies for an article on [the English-language] Wikipedia. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 July 2022 (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.