Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Chih-yu

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. The consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated. If such evidence can be found (not pre-release material for his film(s), but references after release), then I would not be averse to either restoring this or (preferably) userfying it so that it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hung Chih-yu

Hung Chih-yu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition to the one film listed here, IMDB lists one more — with that latter (2008) film (zh:一八九五) apparently more notable. I am still not sure whether this is sufficient for notability, as I find no guideline on the issue. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Comment I note that under the Chinese spelling of his name, there does seem to be coverage for this individual that might meet WP:GNG,[1] but they will require translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Were you able to translate these in order to be able to make a determination that they were either not reliable or did not demonstrate notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't answer for N2e. As far as I am concerned, reliability is not the issue; notability still is. Again, it comes down to one film (一八九五) which got a significant amount of coverage but I have no actual idea whether it ended up being notable or not since most of the coverage appears to be pre-release coverage. (Indeed, that point appears to be confirmed by the Chinese Wikipedia article, which extensively discussed the pre-release promotions but was completely silent about the impact of the film once released.) And the notability guidelines, as far as I can see, don't directly state whether the director of one single notable film (and that's assuming that the film is itself notable, which seems to be the case but I'm not completely sure) is thereafter considered notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • How many of the found sources were you able to translate? I understand your concern, but the article asserts several films, not just one, and unfortunately, English-language coverage for Chinese films otherwise covered is not as decent as we might hope. Just asking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I took quick scans at the summaries and several of the actual links. Again, reliability's not the concern; notability still is. As for your statement that the article mentioned several films — that is true, but for most of the films there he was the assistant director. The article listed one film as the director, and the actually most notable film is not listed. (That's not a reason to delete it, of course.) But what is concerning is that even the most notable film (and it appears that he's only had two, as far as I can see) does not itself appear to be that notable. And again, I find no guideline on whether directing a notable film makes you notable. --Nlu (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • A director falls under WP:FILMMAKER, as the film is the direct result from his involvement in it's creation, and does not neccessarily require involvement in multiple notable productions as does WP:ENT. As I am able I will also dig through the sources and see what I can glean from a google or babblefish tanslations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment. Thanks for digging up WP:FILMMAKER; couldn't find it. Based on the criteria listed there, I think so far we don't have sufficient evidence of notability:
  1. Certainly not 1.
  2. Certainly not 2.
  3. Insufficient evidence that the film in question is significant or well-known work that became the subject of an independent book or featured-length film, or became subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, so insufficient evidence of 3.
  4. Of 4, the only possibility is "has won significant critical attention," and I don't think there's enough there; there was pre-release press coverage, but not post-release press coverage as far as I can see, and much of the pre-release coverage was about the promotion of the film.
  5. 5 is not applicable.

  I think it's a close case, but right now I'm still leaning toward deletion. --Nlu (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (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.