Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hunt (advertisement)


 * 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 merge to Tank Man.  Sandstein  18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Hunt (advertisement)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOSOON to tell if it is notable. Lopifalko (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. China is a dictatorship that bans ads, people, search terms and more all the time. The ad is centered around a notable event, but this article does not inherit that events notability under WP:NOTINHERITED. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tank Man, to improve the Legacy section, as the IP editor below suggested. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Too much Tiananmen information has been deleted already. Furthermore, this incident is a notable part of the history of a set of iconic photographs, not just one more case of an ad being controversial. - phi (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @- phi The IP editor below makes a convincing argument for merging this article to Tank Man to improve the Legacy section. Do you find this solution satisfactory enough to change your vote to merge like I did? Newshunter12 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12 - I certainly applaud your compromising spirit and came back here to say yes to your suggestion but then read the later keep argument from IP editor 109.&c and would like to take a couple days, first to see if a consensus emerges but also I hope to have lunch with some of the people from the Chinese studies department where I work (since I do not read Chinese myself to see what that encyclopedia article says). I found the point about needing the detailed description of the film compelling and doubt it would fit well under Legacy. However, from my connection the YouTube video ID # UCUBAcGgb4A linked in the footnoted Guardian article is still up (though I found it only thanks to material proposed for deletion). That five-minute version includes much more than the fleeting glimpse of the iconic photograph, from the wolves to the security men in the foreigners' hotel. I have qualms about entrusting the public record of a major censorship incident to a video-sharing site. I can understand how the Leica ad might be such major news in China that it'd be weird for us not to have an article on it. Time will tell, but I can certainly imagine coming around to your merge proposal, too. - phi (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge -- Okay, @Newshunter12, you have brought me around because when I got a person from Chinese studies to translate the page mentioned by IP editor 109&c it was immediately clear to me that what may be encyclopedic in one language may not be in another (due to embedded cultural references deep in the nature of linguistic truth). Barring further developments for Leica or Saatchi & Saatchi, this incident will not likely warrant a freestanding encyclopedia article. However, the most important takeaway from yesterday's consultee (a young European Chinawatcher, though I'll try to also probe the two divergent views among native speakers in the Mandarin language department) is that the repudiated Leica ad ought to gain mention in English Wikipedia where it is germane to the handling of the historical legacy of 6/4, say a page about that, or, I am told, we are likely to soon have a 30th anniversary page analogous to five years ago's. The point here is that this incident may prove to be the first among several in the runup to 2019-06-04 next month.  An additional suggestion was that it would be important for the material merged into Tank Man to include this still. We will have to deliberately consider how things unfold. Though students have made me sensitive to Tiananmen-related information disappearing from the historical record, this is not my field, so I'd be grateful if other editors would also take information suppressed between now and the upcoming May 35th to heart. - phi (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge This event is not really notable enough, or significant enough, for an article of its own. However it does give good context to other events, and needs to be on Wikipedia. Would be more appropriate to merge with Tank Man, specifically, to expand and improve the event's mention on the article's Legacy section. It is mentioned there anyway, but a bit more information, and additional sources (only one source on tank man page, 5 sources here) would be good. It could possibly be mentioned (even if only briefly) on other pages as well, such as Internet censorship in China, Censorship in China, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Merge it with what is already on Tank Man, and possibly give it a few mentions on other relevant pages. As Newshunter12 has said, it isn't notable enough to justify an article, but should get a mention.106.68.57.82 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The length and comprehensiveness of the Chinese Wikipedia article already demonstrated the significance and notability of this event, at least in the context of Chinese society and consequently in Chinese Studies. This advertisement might be the most widely publicised media in recent Chinese society that depicts the Tiananmen protests and in particular the journalistic struggles behind Tankman, given its short film nature (and artistic merit!) and Huawei's very visible advertising campaign since its partnership with Leica. I would imagine many of my generation looking back at this and say, "this is where I felt the influence that Tiananmen had on Western societies, and where I felt the pressure facing foreign journalists operating in a closed China."


 * I would agree though that this article as it is written is not very helpful to understanding the significance of this event or its full implications. It is now little more than a stub, while the Chinese Wikipedia page has a detailed accounting of the plot and analysis of reactions and repercussions. The Chinese page has more than 30 references, all of which are reportings on this particular video, across a palette of international media. Also note in particular that both Leica Brasil and the film's directing studio (Kid Burro) has deleted all official releases of this film. Even semi-official releases from individual producing staff and associated Radioaktive Film are all gone, and that means dead video links in news reports. A detailed description of the film would be very useful to any reader without access to the original. 109.246.2.242 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Tank man. Highly unlikely to have WP:LASTING effect to meet WP:NEVENT. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge Not notable enough for an article of its own, but probably deserves some mention on the Tank Man page. DemPon (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2019 (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.