Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What a Hero!


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What a Hero!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film. Released only for three months in Hong Kong. Caffeyw (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? The article says the film had a theatrical release (time in cinemas) of 2 weeks (27 February - 11 March) and grossed $11.5 million. That doesn't necessarily make it notable but I can't work out where the 3 months comes from. Stalwart 111  09:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was meaning three weeks. Sorry Caffeyw (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. All good! Stalwart 111  09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mine that while the article offers box-office information about an initial three-week run in Hong Kong, it is quite likely the film had wider and longer release.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Sourcing is a little tricky to find due to the common name of the flick, but I was unable to find substantial coverage.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If sources are difficult to find for the time being, consider per WP:NFILM: "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."  There's no doubt the film exists and has had commercial release. The nomination seems deletionist to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no doubt that the film exists, but notability has yet to be shown. Has it been proven that this is a major part of the actors' career?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Starring roles for Andy Lau and Maggie Cheung? It's not like these are bit-parts at the beginning of their careers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Year:
 * Anglic:
 * Chinese: title + director:


 * Keep per WP:CSB.  We have a 1992 Chinese language film that did have theatrical release, and an article written in English with an Anglification (Hua! ying xiong) of a Chinese language title.  The issue really is we need input from Chinese Wikipedians able to research and bring forth the expected Chinese language or other Asian-language reviews and coverage acceptable under WP:NONENG. If Chinese language Wikipedian can convince that this film did not receive coverage and that it was not an important part of the careers of certain Chinese film stars, I would withdraw. I cannot in good conscience let an unfortunate systemic bias act as a deletion rationale.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a systemic bias? A film released for only two - three weeks regardless of it being in Hong Kong or the US would in my mind be very hard pressed to meet notability guidelines.  According to your rational if it involves something outside the US we leave it on Wiki absent proof of non-notability, which is completely opposite of Wiki's standards.  Caffeyw (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The systemic bias is that we cannot find English-language sources, but it is highly likely they exist in other languages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What caused User:Caffeyw to assume/declare that a 1992 Chinese language film with a number of notable Chinese actors had only a two-week release.... ever? More to the point, "possible" short length of theatrical release has nothing to do with a film meeting inclusion criteria or not.  I am unable to presume that a 1992 film which raised HK$11,534,659 in its "first" few weeks of release could not have received enough coverage in a city (of perhaps 5 million persons at that time) to meet WP:NF or WP:GNG, even if such coverage is non-English.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Traditonal:
 * Simplified:
 * To User:Caffeyw: With respects, WP:Systemic bias... in no way implies that an editor has any personal bias. However, it does let us know that we could be part of the problem if we do not grant it IS a problem. Do you read or write Cantonese or Mandarin? Have you been able to evaluate the many Chinese language news and book sources revealed by searches. Did you search for sources in those languages? I will await input from Wikipedians able to do just that. Until then, I will maintain that, even if not used, it appears this topic has enough coverage to meet our inclusion criteria... basic policy "Standards" are met... and the topic simply needs the attention of those editors with the linguistic skills to tackle the problem under WP:WIP, WP:PRESERVE, WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood what you where meaning. I in no way took it to mean personal.  However if converted to US dollars in todays value the film made a total of $2.5 million.  Combine with the fact that it ran for a total of 2 - 3 weeks, and no articles are coming up I have to say non-notable.  Also note Hong Kong was a British Overseas Territory then, and even today English is a primary language of many citizens, most including those of Chinese decent don't consider themselves Chinese.  If this was mainland China I could understand your point on possibly missing something because of not being able to search Chinese.  However even there, Wiki's GNG require RS material for an article to be included, just because there might be something in another language doesn't make the film ready for an article.  In fact that would be violating WP:CRYSTAL.  Caffeyw (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL has to do with speaking toward future events... not events of 21 years ago. And where did you verify any information that the film ran for only 2 weeks?  Keep in mind that reporting two-week box office receipts rather than lifetime earnings, does NOT allow an inference that the film was pulled from theaters after two weeks or that it never had a commercial release on television.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Andy Lau is already a hero good enough! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:35, 30 August 2013 (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.