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. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Film Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, and all but one source is from the organisation's own website. —FormalDude^(talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added 13 references of source, added more content in the article. Chongkian (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't agree all sources are from the organization's site, where we have sources from respectable newspapers like Taipei Times and Taiwan Today. In addition to source from Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema which is invaluable academic reference material. This is poor nomination as you've not done WP:BEFORE properly with clear contradiction of your statement and the actual content of the article. Ammarpad (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: All of the current sources were added after I had nominated for deletion. See here. —FormalDude^(talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why WP:BEFORE is recommend. If you had properly followed the process you are the one who would've found the sources and add. Nominating for AfD usually is the last resort after search fails to bring up any meaninful source or no evidence that sources can be found. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reliable sources including national press have been found and added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (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.