Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Investiture of the Gods (1990 TV series)

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 keep. Of note is that a delete !vote in the discussion appears to possibly be based only upon the state of sourcing in the article, which does not confer to the notability of the topic itself as per WP:NEXIST, an important part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. Also, topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Investiture of the Gods (1990 TV series)

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

Just a cast list. No indication of notability Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I know the article is barebones (which is a common symptom for non-Western topics), but this is a Chinese television classic. It was shown on Chinese national TV and watched by hundreds of millions of people, see [1] [2]. Its Youku page says it's been viewed 134 million times (probably all episodes combined), and 20,000 people have left comments on the site. -Zanhe (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - There're plenty of secondary sources from the search term "Investiture of the Gods". STSC (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – many search results for the Chinese name in fact refer to Gods of Honour. SSTflyer 05:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable, the sourcing is still questionable at best and I'm not seeing anyone offering to improve it now. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG pass per sources in the article. SSTflyer 08:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. The article definitely needs to be expanded, but I feel it passes the required notability tests. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2016 (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.