Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music sampling in Hong Kong


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Music sampling in Hong Kong

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a strange one - a very incoherent and confusing article. As Sergecross73 put it in a prior discussion, "It's hard to follow what exactly is being documented here, or it's real scope." Nominating to get some more eyes on it, because I have a feeling it shouldn't exist at all. Popcornfud (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - poorly, confusingly written article beyond redemption. WP:TNT. Sergecross73   msg me  23:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep and rename to either secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources). The Chinese term is:. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article extensively discusses the history of "二次創作" (translated as derivative works or secondary creations) in Hong Kong. The Wikipedia article heavily relies on this article as a source to discuss the history of the topic from the 1960s to 2016.   The book notes: "當然, 把周星馳代表的那種離經叛道、脫繮野馬式的無厘頭文化繼續發揚光大的, 是網絡中林林總總的所謂「二次創作」(類似英語中的 derivative works), 其中包括「改圖」、「改片」、或「改編歌詞」. 周星馳的無厘頭文化可以是無傷大雅或純粹搞笑的荒謬及粗俗(如《整蠱專家》中的「超級戇膠膠」), 亦可以是有意識的政治或社會諷刺 (如《國產凌凌漆》的中國「偉大」發明「太陽能電筒」). From Google Translate: "Of course, it is the so-called "secondary creation" (similar to the derivative works in English) of the so-called "secondary creation" (similar to the English derivative works) that is represented by Zhou Xingchi, which includes Film", or "adapted lyrics". Stephen Chow's nonsensical culture can be innocuous or purely funny, absurd and vulgar (such as the "super sticky glue" in "Tricky Expert"), or it can be conscious political or social satire (such as the "domestic Lingling Paint" China's "great" invention of "solar flashlight")." The next at least five paragraphs discuss derivative works.   The book notes: "但「二次創作」並非版權法學的常用概念,其實質涵蓋範圍不清. 而翻譯、改編這些衍生創作 (derivative works) 在現有版權法中屬原作品版權人的專有權利,有明確的保護. " From Google Translate: "However, 'secondary creation' is not a common concept in copyright law, and its substantive scope is unclear. The translation and adaptation of these derivative works are the exclusive rights of the copyright holders of the original works in the existing copyright law and are clearly protected." The book discusses secondary creations and the copyright law implications of secondary creations on pages 66–75.  Additional sources that briefly discuss "二次創作" (translated by these sources as "secondary creations" or "derivative works"):  The book notes: "secondary creation (parody) N yih chi chong jok jok bán 二次創作作品"  <li> The book notes: "最後, 我們也可以用較 formal 的「derivative work (n. phrase)」(二次創作) 來表達「惡搞」. Some people think that regulation of derivative work may stifle local creativity. 有人認為監管二次創作可能會扼殺本地創意. The derivative works on the Internet show netizens' immense creativity.  網上嘅二次創作反映網民嘅無限創意."</li> <li> The book discusses secondary creation in the context of Japan. The book notes: "In contrast, what is called “secondary creation” (niji sōsaku 二次創作), often seen in YouTube and other video sharing sites, has a more rigid distinction between the original and copies. For example, Pikotaro's original Pen Pineapple Apple Pen (PPAP) music video, which was released on August 25, 2016 on YouTube and went viral soon after, led to a proliferation of copies, but they remain parodies, hence the process is called secondary creation.16" </li> <li> The article talks about secondary creations in the context of Malaysia. The article notes: "二次创作（secondary creation/create）是创作和表达方式的一种" </li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "secondary creations in Hong Kong" or "derivative works in Hong Kong" to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Regarding WP:TNT: The article was more clear in 2016 when the article's creator last edited it and when the title was at second production of songs in Hong Kong. Subsequent edits and a page move to music sampling in Hong Kong have made the topic less clear. I agree with the comment here: "My first thought is that the article is badly titled... most of it doesn't talk about sampling, but about parody songs, which is an entirely different thing." The Chinese term is . I think a page move of music sampling in Hong Kong to secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources) would better reflect the reliable sources and the article content. The article currently discusses the history of secondary creations of music in Hong Kong as well as the legality of secondary creations in general.  I would oppose deletion based on WP:TNT as although the article can be improved, the article content when viewed through the lens of "secondary creations" or "derivative works" makes sense to me and accurately reflects the sources I reviewed.  Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I always struggle with these sorts of arguments - if we change the title and rewrite it to newly found sources, are we really "keeping" it at that point? It sounds like you're proposing writing a whole different article, that will likely never actually be written judging on the low traffic/low interest in editing this mess of an article has received these last five years. Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was moved in 2017 from the correct title second production of songs in Hong Kong to the incorrect title music sampling in Hong Kong. I am suggesting reverting this page move and using secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources) instead. I am not "proposing writing a whole different article". The current article is satisfactory after I removed the incorrect mention of "music sampling" (which was added as part of the incorrect page move). I added information about how the topic refers to "secondary creations" and "derivative works". The article can be improved as well as expanded with the sources I found. But it does not need to be rewritten to be retained in mainspace since the article accurately reflects the sources. It accurately discusses the history of the secondary creations of music in Hong Kong and the legality of the secondary creations. Here are two existing sources in the article: <ol><li></li><li></li></ol> The first source from Metropop is one of the sources I've listed in this AfD. The Wikipedia article relies heavily on the Metropop article to discuss the history of secondary creations of music in Hong Kong. The second source, a commentary on secondary creations, discuss the same topic as the sources I have presented. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the page's history, but a read through of the article is still disjointed and confusing. It's like trying to document the history of a country through 10 unrelated sentences or something - it fails to convey any real message. And it's a very short article on a rather bizarre cross-section to begin with. It needs to be merged or draftified or something. Its an awful read and not likely to be improved any time soon considering the subject matter and the fact that multiple experienced editors from the music Wikiproject didn't even really know where to begin... Sergecross73   msg me  00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I still think this article is a long way from making any sense. The subject itself might be notable, but it's still not obvious from the article what the subject exactly is. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article documents the history of secondary creations (derivative works) in Hong Kong with respect to music. I reviewed the article's sources and found additional sources that discuss secondary creations. The article's topic is very clear to me. The "History" section discusses secondary creations in the 1960s (songs were derived from Chinese opera, Disney musicals, and Western and Japanese songs), 1980s and 1990s (variety shows made use of secondary creations, while the comedians Andrew Lam and Eric Tsang rewrote song lyrics for comedic effect), and after 2000 (netizens began making secondary creations of songs to parody contemporary political and social issues). The "Controversy" section discusses how the proposed law Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 could have affected the legality of secondary creations. Some commentators believed the proposed law would have restricted the freedom of expression and creation with respect to secondary creations. But the article notes that a secondary creation that is considered a parody, satire, pastiche, caricature or commentary, would not be considered copyright infringement under the bill. The "Effects" section further discusses the copyright implications of secondary creations.  The article can be copyedited and expanded but the article's topic and presentation are very clear to me.  Cunard (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the entire article. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved and copyedited by Cunard. Thanks for your great work. VocalIndia (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.