Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Locked Door (2012 film)

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Locked Door (2012 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Prod removed stating that there were to review cited but failed to say where these reviews are. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ten seconds on Google turns up these:

http://www.chinesefilms.cn/1/2012/03/07/141s7899_2.htm
http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-25/17113640392.shtml
http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-21/02103635153.shtml

Likely there are more Chinese language sources. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign language films, so I'll leave that decision to others. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign-language films are exactly the same as for English-language films. They also do not discriminate according to the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back what 86 says. I'll leave it to others to judge the Chinese language sources, machine translation didn't help me enough. But the first linked, not an independent reliable source. It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbiz.asia is the official site of Film Business Asia. Where is your proof that "It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world", and even if it is, why isn't it an independent reliable source if it has no connection to the film? Timmyshin (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote their about page "our aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" [1]. Please take some time to understand what a independent reliable source actually is. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose "aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" could also be a reliable source that is independent of those films. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Deli nk (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more assessment of the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, in addition this will be the final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear WP:SOFTDELETE, since the article at present obviously fails WP:NFILM, and the person who deprodded it has made no attempt to improve it. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film which falls short of WP:NFILM.–Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2017 (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.