386:
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.
681:
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.
515:
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.
410:
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
680:
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
451:
Here is the google translate version of the review: "Almost all the characters in the movie are born out of nowhere. They come just as they say, there is no shaping process at all, and they are simply messy. The production is close to the point of a child's play, watching the former HVD niche and the
514:
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
385:
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
623:
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.
458:
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
380:
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
339:
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
409:
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
658:
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
790:
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.
464:
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,
778:; 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
349:
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
628:
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!
193:
370:) 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.
776:"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."
381:
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
240:
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
340:
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.
434:
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
154:
187:
511:
283:
224:
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
573:
no reviews found. All sources in the
Malaysian Knowledge article are about the filming starting, its release, or the people involved. Not one single review. Fails
263:
101:
86:
624:
The second is the same primary interview of the main cast as stated above, only reported by a different source. Neither are secondary sources.
127:
122:
131:
114:
314:; you're absolutely correct in saying that we're not an IMDb mirror here. Clearly fails NFILM due to shortage of reviews available
633:(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.
594:
there is in fact one short review in reference 6 in this version which is highly critical so obviously independent, in my view
367:
208:
81:
74:
17:
175:
236:
guidelines, two independent reviews from RS are required to establish notability and currently not even one is present.
95:
91:
644:
to establish notability and is sourced completely by data-basic entries, primary cast interviews and
Youtube stuff.
746:
705:
169:
854:
40:
837:
820:
800:
764:
737:
718:
690:
653:
603:
586:
565:
529:
490:
475:
443:
423:
395:
320:
295:
275:
255:
56:
165:
828:
this lacks reviews and therefore fails the notability guidelines for films. So, it's a clear delete case. --
816:
796:
525:
391:
291:
271:
251:
118:
686:
649:
419:
850:
664:
599:
486:
471:
439:
215:
36:
556:
619:: No worries, mistakes happen. That being said I would like to emphasize on the two matters at hand.
110:
62:
760:
733:
582:
361:
201:
833:
810:
792:
612:
521:
387:
287:
267:
247:
682:
645:
507:
415:
382:
225:
181:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
849:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
728:
I agree with
Atlantic306 that there might be just enough independent sourcing to keep this.
660:
616:
595:
540:
501:
482:
467:
435:
375:
341:
237:
452:
entertainer play against the extras who have no experience in acting, it is almost awkward.
787:
574:
411:
311:
244:
233:
459:
who resembles the late
Binanli, but unfortunately was wasted by the crew to play tricks.
756:
729:
578:
357:
315:
829:
771:
634:
539:
Added more secondary sources from major news website / remove release date reference
307:
715:
53:
786:
was based on the presence of one review which was later found to not be the case.
148:
228:(RS) is only primary cast interviews and the last one is a Youtube trailer.
241:
329:
At lease there is 1 Youtube review and 1 all-round review cited.
845:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
749:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
708:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
506:
The excerpt that you are quoting is from the review for 大财神 (
637:
is the Wiki page for that movie. This basically means that
611:
Firstly I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
615:
for ridding the stain questioned on my morality and to
144:
140:
136:
200:
770:
I think this discussion has really run it's course.
481:
Struck incorrect comment, apologies to
Sunshine1191
755:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
714:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
857:). No further edits should be made to this page.
282:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:Note: This discussion has been included in the
555:Covered in Malaysian sources, notable enough.†
284:list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions
214:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
281:
261:
264:list of Film-related deletion discussions
230:One very brief review is provided but
7:
24:
87:Introduction to deletion process
782:as well, because Atlantic306's
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
774:guidelines clearly state that
1:
838:07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
821:19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
801:11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
765:01:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
738:15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
719:17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
57:08:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
691:02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
654:05:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
604:00:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
587:21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
566:08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
530:12:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
491:18:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
476:01:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
444:01:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
424:02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
396:09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
321:08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
296:05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
276:05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
256:05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
874:
642:does not have any reviews
847:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
667:) 7 October 2020 (UTC)
665:User talk:LoveFromBJM
432:Note to closing admin
75:Articles for deletion
659:secondary sources?
631:Family Affairs 2020
609:Comment and update:
306:- concerns around
767:
721:
626:The second matter
508:The God of Wealth
383:Kwong Wah Yit Poh
298:
278:
226:Kwong Wah Yit Poh
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
865:
813:
754:
752:
750:
713:
711:
709:
661:User:LoveFromBJM
639:Good Wealth 2020
563:
505:
379:
318:
219:
218:
204:
152:
134:
111:Good Wealth 2020
72:
63:Good Wealth 2020
34:
873:
872:
868:
867:
866:
864:
863:
862:
861:
855:deletion review
811:
768:
745:
743:
722:
704:
702:
557:
499:
373:
316:
161:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
871:
869:
860:
859:
841:
840:
823:
753:
742:
741:
740:
712:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
671:
670:
669:
668:
606:
589:
568:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:4 October 2020
519:
518:
517:
516:
494:
493:
454:
453:
427:
426:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
346:
345:
344:3 October 2020
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:
323:
300:
299:
279:
222:
221:
158:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
870:
858:
856:
852:
848:
843:
842:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
822:
818:
814:
808:
805:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
793:TheRedDomitor
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
766:
762:
758:
751:
748:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
720:
717:
710:
707:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
666:
662:
657:
656:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:
636:
632:
627:
622:
618:
614:
613:TheRedDomitor
610:
607:
605:
601:
597:
593:
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
561:
560:Encyclopædius
554:
551:
550:
542:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
522:TheRedDomitor
513:
509:
503:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
466:
461:
460:
455:
450:
449:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
425:
421:
417:
413:
408:
405:
404:
397:
393:
389:
388:TheRedDomitor
384:
377:
372:
371:
369:
366:
363:
359:
356:
355:
353:
348:
347:
343:
338:
335:
334:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
319:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:TheRedDomitor
285:
280:
277:
273:
269:
268:TheRedDomitor
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
248:TheRedDomitor
246:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Find sources:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
846:
844:
825:
806:
783:
779:
775:
769:
744:
725:
703:
683:Sunshine1191
646:Sunshine1191
641:
638:
630:
625:
620:
608:
591:
570:
559:
558:
552:
520:
463:
462:
457:
456:
448:
431:
429:
428:
416:Sunshine1191
406:
364:
351:
336:
303:
229:
223:
211:
205:
197:
190:
184:
178:
172:
162:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
809:per nom. --
617:Atlantic306
596:Atlantic306
541:LoveFromBJM
502:Atlantic306
483:Atlantic306
468:Atlantic306
436:Atlantic306
376:LoveFromBJM
342:LoveFromBJM
188:free images
812:KartikeyaS
512:discussion
510:; also at
851:talk page
784:Weak Keep
757:Barkeep49
730:Eliteplus
726:Weak keep
621:The first
592:Weak keep
579:Donaldd23
358:Spiderone
352:Weak keep
317:Spiderone
238:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
853:or in a
830:Adamant1
747:Relisted
706:Relisted
575:WP:NFILM
368:contribs
312:WP:NFILM
245:WP:NFILM
243:. Fails
234:WP:NFILM
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
716:Spartaz
407:Delete-
232:As per
194:WP refs
182:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
826:Delete
807:Delete
780:Delete
571:Delete
308:WP:GNG
304:Delete
166:Google
132:delete
50:delete
788:NFILM
412:NFILM
209:JSTOR
170:books
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
834:talk
817:talk
797:talk
761:talk
734:talk
687:talk
650:talk
635:This
600:talk
583:talk
553:Keep
526:talk
487:talk
472:talk
440:talk
420:talk
392:talk
362:talk
337:Keep
310:and
292:talk
272:talk
252:talk
202:FENS
176:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
772:GNG
577:.
430:::
216:TWL
153:– (
836:)
819:)
799:)
763:)
736:)
689:)
652:)
602:)
585:)
528:)
489:)
474:)
442:)
422:)
414:.
394:)
354:.
294:)
286:.
274:)
266:.
254:)
196:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.
832:(
815:(
795:(
759:(
732:(
685:(
663:(
648:(
598:(
581:(
524:(
504::
500:@
485:(
470:(
438:(
418:(
390:(
378::
374:@
365:·
360:(
290:(
270:(
250:(
220:)
212:·
206:·
198:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
168:(
160:(
157:)
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.