Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese independent film

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 to userfy, which I'll do if the creator, or anybody else, tells me that they do want the content to work on. Sandstein 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese independent film

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

I've been trying to think of a way that this could be WP:PRESERVEd in some way. However it's so fundamentally a case of WP:NOTESSAY and I think WP:BLOWITUP is the only recourse, with the option of WP:USERFYing it for the article creator. What do others think? Am I being too harsh in calling for deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. As the topic of Chinese Independent Film is so eminently sourcable, perhaps this brand new article can be returned to its author as a user draft with an explanation of how to create and source a neutral article.. and it can be returned when more in line with WP:MOS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Such an article would provide important context to the films under this category, but it is essentially a personal essay at this point. If the creator or another interested editor would like to improve the article in draftspace, they can get it WP:REFUNDed once they have a plan or know how to write neutral articles. Esquivalience ^t 04:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so the creator can improve it according to Wikipedia policies and submit it to Articles for Creation when ready. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 29 November 2015 (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.