Talk:Golden Lotus (musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The below stuff was apparently cut and pasted here from somewhere[edit]

All of the sources Bearcat had a problem with have been explained, revised or removed. There are plenty of very reliable new sources as explained in Bearcat (talk).John99Wick (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not going to either approve or reject this per se. But as the original deletion nominator, I felt the need to comment.

  • Firstly, it is not "improper" or a "trainwreck" to bundle directly related topics, such as a writer and his works (or a musician and his albums) together if they have the same or similar problems. It would certainly be inappropriate to bundle unrelated topics, like a writer and works by somebody else, but there's nothing improper about what happened here.
  • Secondly, the problem with the first version of the article wasn't that it didn't make any potentially valid notability claims -- the problem was (and still is) that the references present to support them largely don't cut it as reliable ones. The majority of the citations here are to blogs or Facebook posts, which are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia content -- literally the only source I can't immediately dismiss as a total non-starter right off the top is wenweipo.com (which is reduplicated as #3 and #15 for no apparent reason), but one valid source isn't enough to establish notability all by itself. Articles are not kept or deleted on the basis of what they claim about a topic — they're kept or deleted on the basis of how well the claims are or aren't reliably sourced, and almost none of the sources here are reliable ones.
  • And finally, deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article -- obviously this can be reapproved if and when somebody can do a better job of properly sourcing its notability than the first version showed, and deletion review does not have to overturn the original result first before that can happen. But the new sources that have been added here so far still aren't reliable or notability-supporting ones that properly establish its eligibility to be recreated: they're virtually all still junk sources that can't be used in Wikipedia articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We want to have the concerns regarding this page addressed as soon as possible. We have rewritten sections of the article and provided multiple reputable articles such as the Toronto Star, National Post, Toronto Sun, and even local media sources like the Stouffville Bullet Point News. These articles clearly highlight George Chiang's achievements and impact in the entertainment industry. However, we have not received any response or further guidance from the commenter. Can you please let us know what the next steps should be in order to resolve this matter? Thank you. FYR: The Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/local-stouffville/life/2023/02/20/stouffville-composer-wins-accolades-for-golden-lotus-film.html, Toronto Sun: https://torontosun.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/canadian-artist-george-chiang-wins-the-filmmaker-of-the-year-award-for-golden-lotus, National Post: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/golden-lotus-leads-the-pack-with-4-award-wins-at-the-barcelona-international-film-festival Also, an article from the local media: the Stouffville Bullet Point New:https://stouffville.bulletpointnews.ca/local-news/george-chiang/ Lily Lu22 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the closing administrator, User:SoWhy, to reconsider the close of the AFD with respect to the musical, because the AFD was about the (non)notability of the composer, not of the musical. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. This draft is not significantly different from the deleted article. A strict interpretation would be that this draft should be declined since there has already been an AFD. However, my judgment is that the bundling of the musical article with the article on the composer was a train wreck caused by bundling things that should not have been bundled. This draft does appear to establish notability for the musical, meaning that I disagree with the original deletion as it respects the article on the musical. I will not decline this draft, because I think that it establishes general notability. However, I will not accept this draft, because I won't ignore the deletion. I recommend that the bundling of the musical in with the BLP be appealed to deletion review. Maybe another reviewer will simply ignore all rules and accept, but I recommend deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This draft does not appear to have changed much since deletion. The deleted version can be seen in the history because it was userfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "most infamous Chinese novel of all time" should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia (even if critics have sometimes so characterized it). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Chiang, which also deleted Golden Lotus (musical). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2018

I formatted all of the above so that one can follow it. I don't know where it was cut and pasted from, or if it was copied faithfully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the formatted information and your further comments. We appreciate your diligence in organizing the discussion. We understand your concerns and would like to address them.
Firstly, we want to clarify that the article we submitted was written independently, taking into account the guidelines and policies set forth by Wikipedia. We ensured that the content was supported by trustworthy press and reliable sources.
Considering the concerns raised, we would like to better understand the specific areas that have not met the requirements or have caused dissatisfaction. We are committed to addressing any issues and rectifying them to align with Wikipedia's standards.
To that end, we kindly request that you provide us with specific feedback or any identified shortcomings in the article. This will allow us to accurately assess the concerns and make the necessary revisions or clarifications to meet the requirements. We value your expertise and perspective, and we are dedicated to working collaboratively to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the Golden Lotus (the Musical) Wikipedia page.
We look forward to your response and the opportunity to work together to resolve any outstanding issues. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Lily Lu22 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanna follow up, as I haven't heard back from you. Your comment will be helpful. Thanks Lily Lu22 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanna follow up, as I haven't heard back from you. Your comment will be helpful. Thanks Lily Lu22 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Lotus_(musical)&oldid=1199793381"