Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hulao Pass


 * 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 redirect to List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms.  Sandstein  11:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Hulao Pass

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are insufficient reliable third party sources with substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Granted, this is one of the bigger battles in the novels and frequently appears in adaptations, but no less than any other popular element from these novels, and goes without saying when you talk about adaptations of Romance of the Three Kingdoms itself. The events are already proportionately described in other articles about the fiction itself, and the only sources here are really original research explaining that no one could find historicity for this fictional battle. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. As written, the article fails WP:NFICTION but the sadly unreferenced Battle_of_Hulao_Pass section shows promise (which is while a while ago I reviewed this article and didn't PROD/AfD it). Ping User:Andrew Davidson - maybe the Rescue project could take a look at this? Got any Chinese speaking members? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw that too. I think this runs back into any adaptation (novel, game, film, comic, live theatre) of a fictional work. Yes, a new adaptation means that every aspect of a fiction's characters, locations, and events now appear in the original AND the adaptation. I don't think that more primary material confers any additional notability to any of the fiction's disparate elements, nor does it give you the kind of sources you'd need to create an encyclopedic article. But I support having articles about the adaptations (games, theatre productions) themselves, and summarizing the fictional details that appear in those adaptations. I also support a check for references in other languages, which could result in an WP:ATD. (But doesn't as of yet). Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#8213; Susmuffin  Talk 04:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 17:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep, a major fictional battle in world literature, the novel itself is one of the Four Classics of Chinese literature (thus nothing to sneeze at). Surprised to find this nominated, and although it may need more cites it is a notable "thing" within the Four Classics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete granted, this is from one of the most notable works of fiction. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there's no sources to write something verifiable with real world context. Battle is already covered at List_of_fictitious_stories_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms and would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_fictitious_stories_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms. Not an independently-notable narrative from the Romance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 13 August 2020 (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.