Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Legend 1990


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  15:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost Legend 1990

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of notability. No reviews found. All previous citations were dead links and film database sites. Donald D23  talk to me  17:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hong Kong.  Donald D23   talk to me  17:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. A WP:BEFORE search found databases and trivial (non-SIGCOV) mentions, 1, 2, that are insufficient to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please kindly review the newly referenced links during the discussion made by the ediotr (-Shane At Work) who is also the original party who had created the article out of interest and experience after having watched the film in which the links were believed to be legit supporting sources for the newly edited article. -Shane At Work (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please consider relating the link(s): as the characters and synopsis/plot are relatable to the experience derived from the film as the originality was purely created from my interest to expand the contribution. Requesting for a chance to keep the article for future readers' reference and that would be great. Furthermore, it has been reviewed in a blog by somebody who actually share the same perspective as the editor regarding the movie's experience, in which the storyline can be supported under the link.
 * Apologies but two routine non-WP:SIGCOV databases and a blogspot review (non-WP:RS) doesn't really help with notability, still, thank you for your efforts in creating the article and working to retain it.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the prompt reply, but the editor of the original does and still hope for the article's originality and rather fresh information (be it sourced or unsourced) be expanded in the future with the relevant WP:SIGCOV given the time in the future by public viewer(s) as one might believe expansion is needed for new articles that have existed in actuality from viewers' film experience and concern. -Shane At Work (talk), 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Could it be possible if you could demonstrate which sources pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, instead of unclear assertions of WP:SIGCOV? Further, while I understand that you would like other viewers who watched this film to find a relevant article on Wikipedia, that's not a convincing argument to keep the article. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Some changes have been made to the reference - source from webpage presumably relevant as a WP:SIGCOV as there are ratings and full plot to support the article of a (non-WP:RS) such as a blogspot, but a film publisher and company. Please review the link as follows- . Thank you.-Shane At Work (talk), 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I remain unpersuaded on that these meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The first one is a database (non-SIGCOV, per WP:NFILM, To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database, I would argue that it's a IMDb-like database). Similarly, the second is also an unreliable database with a non-SIGCOV plot overview, cast listing, and linking to IMDb and Douban, two user-generated non-RS sources. I am unconvinced that these meet notability requirements and stand by my delete vote, would you agree? Still, I appreciate your efforts, let's respectfully disagree and many thanks!  VickKiang   (talk)  05:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. However, i just found a site which to my surprise, is another Wikipedia, but in Chinese by which the details within further stretches the production detail, cast list, but synopsis awaited to be filled up only. Regardless of changes made or edited, still it would be nice for you to at least give this article a go since i can also relate and possibly translate the article page from English to Chinese in the future for the other Wikipedia variation of the same title? also reaching to -Shane At Work (talk), 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Wikipedia has just a single database ref, so it's not much better.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with VickKiang...the sites mentioned are not enough to pass notability requirements. Donald D23   talk to me  11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day. Noted with many thanks from the both of you. and, before the page is to be deleted, i would like to search for more supporting source(s) with similarities regarding the character build up in order to form a list of, or at least something to relate to WP:SIGCOV. Many thanks for the advice. Appreciate it.-Shane At Work (talk), 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good day. Noted with many thanks from the both of you. and, before the page is to be deleted, i would like to search for more supporting source(s) with similarities regarding the character build up in order to form a list of, or at least something to relate to WP:SIGCOV. Many thanks for the advice. Appreciate it.-Shane At Work (talk), 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. There does not seem to be any serious work at cleaning up this mess of an article (I did, but then gave up as hopeless). Indeed, -Shane At Work seems to be using the page as a sandbox, I've just reverted because the  template is intended for use on user talk pages, not in articles. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and Refine - according to the source(s) produced, the page is being "heavily tried" on with efforts for further improvement, as on-going searches are being conducted. Time needed to further improve reference (s) in order to support its reliability. Hoping for a chance for amendments since Ghost Legend 1990 is a redirect Ghost Legend 1990#Refences and Honorable Mention. -Shane At Work (talk),7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You voted "keep" then "keep and refine", which could be misleading to others. IMO you should either strike your duplicate vote or make sure in your second voting comment that you are elaborating upon the previous vote of keep. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  00:54, 8 November 2022 (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.