Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duel for Gold


 * 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Duel for Gold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMNOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: We do not judge a topic notability by an article lacking use of sources, but instead decide if sources are available, even if non-English.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my general observations on film notability in Hong Kong and China at the Articles for deletion/The Return of Wong Fei Hung discussion (minus the Andy Lau part at the end, which doesn't apply here). Philg88 ♦talk 09:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mandarin:
 * Cantonese:
 * working title:


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep Two further Chinese sources added to establish notability. Philg88 ♦talk 09:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A big issue is that its Chinese name is 火併 (which simply translates as "fights") and this common search term/word gives multiple false positives. As director Yuen Chor is a very prolific Hong Kong notable, and as this is one of his works, I can accept that this film must certainly have had hard-copy Chinese coverage back in pre-internet 1971... coverage which was not somehow archived 20 years later when limited internet became available in Hong Kong. As article content is verifiable, I believe that under WP:NTEMP it serves Wikipedia to allow it to remain and receive the editorial attention of those editors better able than I to find find and translate sources. Being difficult to address does not equate to deletion. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's work. Now it meets WP:NF.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2014 (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.