Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Wealth 2020

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Wealth 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable film. Of the 7 refs provided; Four are run of the mill coverage such as the film's release on New Year, partial box office collection etc. The ref from Kwong Wah Yit Poh (RS) is only primary cast interviews and the last one is a Youtube trailer. One very brief review is provided but As per WP:NFILM guidelines, two independent reviews from RS are required to establish notability and currently not even one is present. WP:BEFORE searches for reviews by independent RS such as Kakimuvee have come back with zero hits. Actually if you go to see it, the article is currently more or less a mirror of the film's IMDB page[1]. Fails WP:NFILM TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; you're absolutely correct in saying that we're not an IMDb mirror here. Clearly fails NFILM due to shortage of reviews available Spiderone 08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At lease there is 1 Youtube review and 1 all-round review cited.

• Keep Dear all, but why do I feel that my articles that I have largely edited are being watched now? I know that there are other articles which fails both, less formatting and cite no sources, but they are not being targeted or deleted. I'm feeling that right now article is being deleted because u guys have noticed me in other articles for deletion and now are examining me through my user contributions list. I honestly feels very sad though.. I hope that after this u guys could stop. LoveFromBJM 3 October 2020

Aside from reviews, aren't some of the other references cited from strong sources, just like other film articles who will cite production notes, coverage, box office. Why would you say that these sources are not useful? Shouldn't it be at least Weak keep.

Spiderone (talk · contribs) Added 1 more review source from Youtube, though not written, can be considered as independent RS, in the 18-minutes video, the speaker has criticized the film's using of cheap jokes, clearly not an endorsed ads.

@LoveFromBJM: You seems to be missing the point. It is the notability of the said article as a whole that is being questioned, not you as the creator. Yes other films too cite stuff like production, box office etc but those are in detail and from officially confirmed reliable sources. All the sources currently cited in the article are basic entries and one-paragraph coverage of the film's release date, other competing films etc. None of it explores the topic in-depth. The actual reliable ref from Kwong Wah Yit Poh is primary cast interviews. Primary cast interviews need to be backed up by secondary sources. YouTube reviews by individuals are not RS as anyone can review a film of their liking and post it on the website. If Youtube is being used as a citation then it needs to be from the channel of an official RS. Frustration about the fact that an article of your creation has been put up for deletion is understandable but using a passive aggresive tone and arguments like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will not help further your cause. If there are other such articles that aren't notable then pls do bring it to the notice of an admin, other editors or you yourself can choose to do something about it. Also, it might be a good idea to go maybe go through the Afc process while creating an article next time. TheRedDomitor (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- The article lacks in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. 2 of the refs are only about the release date and as stated above, the primary source (interview) isn't backed up by secondary sources. I have read through the review provided, the first para is a summary of the plot, the second speaks about lack of established names in the cast and only the last para speaks about cinematography/writing etc. The YouTube review is a fan review from a channel called Jokes Whut (not RS). If the film was indeed notable then there should have been more in-depth coverage and reviews by now. Put together it isn't enough to establish NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: Note to closing admin The above description of the review in reference 6 is somewhat incorrect. It is in fact three small paragraphs that are all highly critical analysis of the film from the get go, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The allusion of a small place is tied to the God of Wealth, and it is hard-made into an unconvincing story. The dialogue that resembles a moral education comes out of the actors' mouths, which is more old-fashioned than the drama of middle school students. The most memorable one is the Malay actor who resembles the late Binanli, but unfortunately was wasted by the crew to play tricks.

I would advise those people in the society to change the sponsorship of movie tickets to the public to watch other local movies. Don't produce and provide stories by yourself. Local movies will make a living during the New Year, and you will have a lot of merit." imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck incorrect comment, apologies to Sunshine1191 Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The excerpt that you are quoting is from the review for 大财神 (The God of Wealth; also at discussion at the Afd's. The review for this movie is one above that, atleast I think it is because the translation for that title is Family Things 2020 (家有囍事2020 not 财神2020, which is the title for this article), but it is a translation and it does have 2020 in it. Plus all four films were released at the same time around new year so I'm assuming good faith in the creator. The review for this movie is summarised exactly as stated by editor Sunshine1191; Para 1-plot outline, Para 2-casting issues and Para 3-cinematography summarised briefly. I strongly suggest that you either strike or modify your note to the closer above as it paints Sunshine1191 in a false/bad light.

TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added more secondary sources from major news website / remove release date reference LoveFromBJM 4 October 2020

• Keep Covered in Malaysian sources, notable enough.† Encyclopædius 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reviews found. All sources in the Malaysian Wikipedia article are about the filming starting, its release, or the people involved. Not one single review. Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep there is in fact one short review in reference 6 in this version which is highly critical so obviously independent, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and update: Firstly I would like to express my sincere gratitude to TheRedDomitor for ridding the stain questioned on my morality and to Atlantic306: No worries, mistakes happen. That being said I would like to emphasize on the two matters at hand. The first is the creator's comment that they have added two secondary sources. To that I would like to point out that the first is a primary interview summary about the director of the film, where he speaks about this film and a few other films of his undertaking. Notability isn't automatically transferred. The second is the same primary interview of the main cast as stated above, only reported by a different source. Neither are secondary sources. The second matter is of the one brief review provided. As well spotted by the nom, the title used in the review is different from the one in the article. Further probing into the matter has revealed the reason for that...it is a different movie! Family Affairs 2020 (家有囍事2020) is another movie that released around the same time which is what lead to the review confusion due to translations. This is the Wiki page for that movie. This basically means that Good Wealth 2020 does not have any reviews to establish notability and is sourced completely by data-basic entries, primary cast interviews and Youtube stuff. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, sorry for adding the wrong reviews, too much confusion. Anyway, aside from reviews, aren't the other sources listed: production news, cast interviews, which are cited in others articles too, could already been counted as good source from notable news website, so what exactly counted as secondary sources? User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM) 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources are sources that do not involve anyone related to the topic. A source by an independent third-party. In these cases above the reports are basically summaries of the interviews given by actors involved in the film and are so counted as a primary source. If any external independent RS covered the information in these interviews in an article format (stating verified factual information) rather than a report format (stating information based on the word of people involved) then that would be a secondary source. And as stated in this discussion one too many times, reviews and secondary sourcing are a must to establish NFILM, as without that, comprising of only release dates, cast names etc the article is databasic not encyclopedic. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I agree with Atlantic306 that there might be just enough independent sourcing to keep this. Eliteplus (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has really run it's course. GNG guidelines clearly state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."; this is clearly not the case here as all of the sourcing either comprises of primary cast interviews or YouTube fan reviews and trailers, neither of which are in-depth coverage by independent sources. From my POV this is a clear consensus wise Delete as well, because Atlantic306's Weak Keep was based on the presence of one review which was later found to not be the case. NFILM requires the presence of two independent reviews to establish notability but currently not even one is present. No prejudice against the article's recreation in the future if reviews are ever written. But anyways, whatever the outcome may be, this Afd requires closure. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this lacks reviews and therefore fails the notability guidelines for films. So, it's a clear delete case. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.