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The result was Keep—Withdrawn by nominator—WP:NAC based on the reliable sources found by User:CMBJ. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanyuan Jian: Tian Zhi Hen

[edit]

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

"Upcoming" television series. Article is three months old, so if it were really notable, one would expect some sources to be available. I'm aware of the potential existence of foreign-language sources, and if anyone can find some, I'd be happy to withdraw this, but currently it is unsourced, and unsourcable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on. The show hasn't even aired yet. By then, it'll have some sources If you delete it, we would have to start all over.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about things that do not yet exist seem very silly to me, and are pretty obvious candidates for deletion. Once this actually does exist and there are sources available to cite, then the article can be created properly (it's not a proper article even for an existent series, being only a brief overview and the cast list, which would raise questions of notability anyway). Those who care enough about the show, should it ever be broadcast, will care enough to re-do the article when the time comes.--TEHodson 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew are already finished filming it months ago. However, due to other television series that has to come first and finding buyers for its copyright, it is likely will air at some point within this summer.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of this discussion would be rendered pointless if someone could provide two sources in sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS that discuss this series. Unless these sources exist, then it doesn't matter if the show is finished filming, pending airing, trapped in copyright hell for 7 years, or on the air tomorrow. None of this matters. Notability is what matters, and the way to prove notability is through coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cited from a reliable source from Sina, but just one link. I'm sure there will be more info once the show atarts to air.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to a page of photos that may be from the show, but could be from anything. It is also entirely in Chinese and for the English Wikipedia, doesn't the source need to at least be partly readable, in English, as a valid source? How else do we know what the source says? Clearly notability cannot, at this time, be established. The article should be deleted until there are at least two English-language sources that do more than just advertise the show or show us what the cast looks like. Copy and paste what you've done so far into a word-processing program, then copy and paste it back into Wikipedia once the show is on the air, being written about, and the sources can be verified as is necessary for the English Wikipedia. Your first loyalty as a Wikipedia contributor, Neobatfreak, should be to it, not to an obscure television drama that may or may not make it on the air. At this point you're making an argument for advertising it, not creating a valid Wikipedia article that meets WP requirements.--TEHodson 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, TEHodson, you're wrong—there is no requirement that sources be in English. However, there is a requirement that they be reliable. NeoBatfreak can you read WP:RS and let us know if this source does, in fact, meet the criteria for a reliable source? Does it have a reputation for checking facts before publishing articles? Are there editors who are separate from the authors of the articles? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then that's about half of what's needed to meet the notability requirement. Find one or two more similar sources and then you'll have satisfied all the requirements. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cited another source.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livitup: What is the usual method of verifying a source on the English Wikipedia for foreign-language citations? I've never run into this before. Can you give me a link to the policy page so I understand how it's done? It seems odd that we should have to rely on a person who is pushing for an article to tell us that his is a verifiable source. I would expect there to be more objective criteria than that. Google Chrome offered me a translation of the article, but it was nonsense and I couldn't tell anything from it except that it seems to be a publicity page for the TV show.--TEHodson 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new source: it appears to be another Wiki fan site, and when translated says something about it having been uploaded in 2011. I don't think that qualifies as a source. A source must be a periodical or a book, or an online review--something objective, not created by fans. So far neither of these sources appear to be even the equivalent of TV Guide. One is a fan-created page (I think) and the other appears to be a publicity sort of page, with photos of some people in costume. It would help, Neobatfreak, if you could tell us what these sites are, what they say, who has put them up, and then answer all of the questions Livitup has asked.--TEHodson 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, an English translation is usually required for non-English language sources, or at least English footnotes, so this means to me that the person creating the article must do extra work so that those of us who don't read Chinese can understand what the sources say, as well as who the sources are. And they still cannot be user-generated fan sites or wikis.--TEHodson 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, in part, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." (emphasis original.) It is true that we rely on the person who found the source to judge its reliability. I looked at the two sources in this article and I readily admit that I have no earthly clue if they are reliable or not. Generally in these situations we ask the person who found them to confirm that they understand WP:RS and to confirm that the sources meet WP:RS. The admin closing this AfD debate can judge the extent to which the confirmations seem serious. (I note for the record that this confirmation has not been given yet in this case...) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA, that according to the policy you quoted, English translations are only required when the text of the source is directly quoted in the article. There is no such requirement for sources to be translated wholesale in order to reference a statement in the article, or to establish notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.cn is a reliable source, because it is a Chinese news site. I admit I can't find more information, because of the delay of airing and me living in US and don't know where else to find more information. That's all I can do at this point.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.cn is described as an "infotainment" site, not a news site.--TEHodson 07:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere else you need to go, such as Buffy stuff?! It's been nearly a month, and I haven't again doing another edit on a Buffy related articles, and what you complained about me and now you are pretty much doing the same. Sina maybe what you said "infotainment" site, but nevertheless equivalent to US's Entertainment Weekly. Quit being such a control freak, when you aren't even a Wikipedia administrator. From what I read from all the message posts, you aren't even familiar with all the Wikipedia's rules yourself!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open forum. The article does not appear to me to meet notability requirements for many reasons. It's not personal. Once the show is up and running and there are reviews and articles about it, there may be enough to restore it. I've suggested copying it into a word-processing program for ease of restoration. Entertainment Weekly is edited, content is fact-checked, it's not fan-created, etc., so the comparison doesn't seem to hold. Infotainment isn't journalism--you can buy ads through it, which is what the show's creators appear to have done. In any case, you've been asked several important questions by Livitup, and the easiest thing for you to do is find the answers and satisfy someone, anyone, that the sources meet WP reliability criteria instead of arguing here. Focus on what you need to do to save your article, or accept that, for now, it may have to go until it can be done properly.--TEHodson 10:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, no one likes a control freak, and you aren't even a Wikipedia administrator. Still think you are the queen of the whole Wikipedia?!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that this talk is even happening. it is obviously a real show. You can find trailers of it and cast interviews, everything by a simple youtube search. Why would one even bother about this. It is definitely a real show! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.7 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the article has a promotional poster and that there are corresponding pages on the Chinese and Vietnamese Wikipedias already verifies the existence of this TV series. There are references on the article now, but they are not in English. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the TV show is not the issue (although it does seem that this is a pending TV show, not one that has been broadcast yet), the notability of the article itself is. All WP articles must fulfill notability requirements, which have to do with many different things (please see WP:Notability if you aren't sure what these are), the least of which is the existence of the thing about which the article has been written. There is little sense in coming here and arguing about the state of the show--what needs to happen is a major improvement to the article itself. The only reason the show's amorphous existence is, in the end, relevant is that almost nothing appears to have been written about it. Advertisements and promotional material do not satisfy WP source requirements (see WP:RS).--TEHodson 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us think the article is not notable and should be deleted. The originator of the article, Neobatfreak, has been asked more than once to answer specific questions about his sources, but doesn't seem to feel the need to do so. The other contributors merely assert that the show exists (somewhere, though not on television as of this date), and meanwhile, no one has come close to upgrading the article to make it notable. What more is there to say? As long as those pushing for the article's continued existence here on WP have absolutely no idea what constitues notability and are unwilling to learn, there will never be "consensus." Some of us understand the problem and realize that, at this point, there is no way to make the article notable as there's simply no information available to cite. The others don't understand the problem at all and have abdicated any responsibility for it (and have degenerated to personal attacks instead of dealing with the issues). I'm not sure what more time will accomplish.--TEHodson 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's preliminary coverage on China.com, Sina.com, Sohu and Xinhua, and the list of reliable sources from millions of Google hits goes on:

This nomination is yet another prime example of inefficiency brought on simply because our deletion process has failed to adapt measures that aid the community in evaluating non-English subjects. — C M B J 12:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone tried running the sources the originator has provided through GoogleTranslate or somesuch? Or considered trying to find an editor fluent in both languages to help? - Jorgath (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links on the citations and used the Google translator and got complete nonsense (as I said above). I was unable to determine who or what the websites were or what they were saying (please read above for details). Neobatfreak is, I believe, fluent in both languages but has, so far anyway, refused to answer any questions about reliability or to help in any way beyond insisting his article is notable because he says it is. The Sina.com site is one people pay to put ads on (from what I understand). There have no journalism sites cited so far. A million Google hits has nothing to do with a source's reliability! I would settle for one source that is the any sort of independently edited and produced magazine, but so far all we've been offered are advertisements and user-generated sites. They simply don't meet WP standards for reliable sources. Not sure why this article so important to anyone; if nothing has been written about it, if the show isn't even on the air, why can't it just wait until those things have changed (if they do)? Now someone's arguing that the reason this article is being targeted for deletion is because we fail to support non-English articles? That argument should be supported somehow, with facts or examples, or better yet, the person making the argument should devote some time to finding proper sources and upgrading the article. For some reason, that's the only thing the people arguing in favor of keeping it absolutely refuse to do (or are unable to do because no sources exist), which brings us right back to the reason the article, for now, should go. I keep suggesting it be copied and pasted into a word-processing program and, once there are good sources for it, copy and paste it back into WP. That would take considerably less energy than all this fruitless argument.--TEHodson 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should "devote some time to finding proper sources"? Come now. I've produced eighteen hand-picked articles, each from sources that either are unequivocally reliable or would otherwise arguably be considered acceptable by the majority of editors. The argument that "no sources exist" is wholly unsubstantiated and simply absurd at this point. — C M B J 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they're reliable, then put them in the article! I just went to the first one on your list and asked for a translation, and it said something completely different from what Neobatfreak says above. It says that shooting will begin in August of this year, while he says it was already completed and will be broadcast this year. Whatever the truth of the matter is, the ARTICLE NEEDS TO MEET NOTABILITY REQUIREMENTS!! Expand the article, cite your sources, make it meet notability requirements rather than spend your time arguing here! Why is that the only thing none of you is willing to do? You're supposed to be telling us here why the article meets notability requirements, not arguing about the existence of the show, or it's potential existence, or whatever. WORK ON THE DAMN ARTICLE and this problem will go away. It's really very simple, but none of you seems to get it. --TEHodson 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article", according to WP:N. — C M B J 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you read the whole page and understand it correctly, the notability argument is axiomatic: if the subject is notable, the article will easily meet notability requirements if it's written and sourced properly. I notice that people who quote policy only do so for that fraction which they think supplies proof that their argument is correct, and ignore all the rest of the policy. The very first thing that page enumerates is the necessity that all information in the article be verifiable and properly sourced. And do you not understand that if an article is incomplete, poorly written, not at all sourced, etc., that no matter how notable the subject, the article itself still has to be revamped in order to rise to notability requirements? There are two issues, not one, and both must be satisfied. Once again I suggest that you stop adding arguments here and just go improve the article so that the argument is moot (but I think this is yet another of about a million cases where people prefer arguing for the sake of it than simply solving the problem being discussed--a common occurrence on Wikipedia and one which makes so many of us hate, hate, hate editing here). Look at all the energy you all have expended here on this page, without anyone copying and pasting even one of the above links, the so-called proof of the subject's notability, into the article itself. I don't think any of you really cares about the article--you're having much too much fun arguing. I'm done with the argument, myself. The article is crap, this argument is ridiculous, and I have better things to do.--TEHodson 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely chose to be concise because I preffered not admonish you for making numerous false assertions and engaging in other contraventions, particularly because you're making an honest and otherwise commendable effort. However, if you're going to put me in a position where I have to defend myself, then:

"I followed the links on the citations and used the Google translator and got complete nonsense (as I said above). I was unable to determine who or what the websites were or what they were saying (please read above for details). Neobatfreak is, I believe, fluent in both languages but has, so far anyway, refused to answer any questions about reliability or to help in any way beyond insisting his article is notable because he says it is."

WP:RS does not require that you or anyone else be able to understand material for it to be considered reliable.

"The Sina.com site is one people pay to put ads on (from what I understand). There have no journalism sites cited so far."

According to our own article on Sina.com, the company "provides [...] over thirty integrated channels, including news, sports, technology information, finance, advertising services, entertainment, fashion, and travel [in every localized website]." Beyond that, the article itself also says "(责编： yxj)" at the bottom right, which is an international, universal way of attributing content to a specific entity. Compare this with another random article on the site and thousands of others that attribute 'yxj', then you can deduce that it's not likely an unacceptable source. Mind you, this contention was also reaffirmed after twenty other sources existed between the article and deletion discussion.

"A million Google hits has nothing to do with a source's reliability!"

No one ever suggested that it did, nor was a faulty WP:GHITS argument ever made at any point.

"I would settle for one source that is the any sort of independently edited and produced magazine, but so far all we've been offered are advertisements and user-generated sites. They simply don't meet WP standards for reliable sources."

Unless you're withholding some tremendously compelling evidence, this is tantamount to a pants on fire allegation.

"Not sure why this article so important to anyone; if nothing has been written about it, if the show isn't even on the air, why can't it just wait until those things have changed (if they do)?"

Why wouldn't this (or any other) article be presumed important? We're here to write an encyclopedia. Besides, there's quite a bit of convincing detail here, and if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

"Now someone's arguing that the reason this article is being targeted for deletion is because we fail to support non-English articles? That argument should be supported somehow, with facts or examples"

That's because hardly a day goes by where a valid non-English article isn't mistaken for trash. It's becoming a serious problem, it's one I've argued in the past that we need to address, and this very nomination shows just how much resources it can cost our contributors.

"[...] or better yet, the person making the argument should devote some time to finding proper sources and upgrading the article. For some reason, that's the only thing the people arguing in favor of keeping it absolutely refuse to do (or are unable to do because no sources exist), which brings us right back to the reason the article, for now, should go."

I personally found and presented a plethora of new sources, all of which were in addition to the three that another contributor had already provided. Moreover, there is nothing stopping anyone from implementing additional material from any of them.

"I keep suggesting it be copied and pasted into a word-processing program and, once there are good sources for it, copy and paste it back into WP. That would take considerably less energy than all this fruitless argument."

There's nothing to support this conclusion other than proof by assertion. And while I agree that this discussion could in many ways be described as fruitless, that actualization can largely be attributed to the fact that it ever began, though it's now also being doubled-down on with this sorry excuse for a debate.

"Whatever the truth of the matter is, the ARTICLE NEEDS TO MEET NOTABILITY REQUIREMENTS!! Expand the article, cite your sources, make it meet notability requirements rather than spend your time arguing here! Why is that the only thing none of you is willing to do?"

I'd be thrilled to see those sources be used to expand the article; however, there are so many hours in a day and I felt that hunting down eighteen sources—for a random article, and in Chinese, no less—was a sufficient relative contribution on my part.

"You're supposed to be telling us here why the article meets notability requirements, not arguing about the existence of the show, or it's potential existence, or whatever. WORK ON THE DAMN ARTICLE and this problem will go away. It's really very simple, but none of you seems to get it."

Yes, and explaining why this article meets notability requirements has indeed been attempted. No argument of mine has pertained to the existence or potential existence of the subject matter. And the problem, with respect to the prior points made in this AfD, essentially has gone away until at least one person makes a vaguely reasonable counter-argument against the body of source material now collectively made known.

"And, if you read the whole page and understand it correctly, the notability argument is axiomatic: if the subject is notable, the article will easily meet notability requirements if it's written and sourced properly. I notice that people who quote policy only do so for that fraction which they think supplies proof that their argument is correct, and ignore all the rest of the policy."

The rest of the guideline substantiates such an interpretation of that portion, including WP:GNG, which specifies that "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".

"The very first thing that page enumerates is the necessity that all information in the article be verifiable and properly sourced. And do you not understand that if an article is incomplete, poorly written, not at all sourced, etc., that no matter how notable the subject, the article itself still has to be revamped in order to rise to notability requirements? There are two issues, not one, and both must be satisfied."

There's a reasonable threshold of acceptability for content, but the onus is generally on those favoring deletion to demonstrate that it has not been met. That's why no consensus defaults to keep.

Once again I suggest that you stop adding arguments here and just go improve the article so that the argument is moot"

That's actually the preferred course of action in my books, too, but I don't always have time to improve every article I comment on at AfD. That's a limitation that we all sometimes suffer from.

"but I think this is yet another of about a million cases where people prefer arguing for the sake of it than simply solving the problem being discussed--a common occurrence on Wikipedia and one which makes so many of us hate, hate, hate editing here."

Sorry, but I'm not the one who was arguing for the sake of it here. Let's consider the metrics. This discussion has—right up until before this—seen some 2,900 words and 17,000 characters. Approximately 4-5% of that can be attributed to me. Compare that with approximately 59-62% for you. The numbers don't add up to support this postulation.

"Look at all the energy you all have expended here on this page, without anyone copying and pasting even one of the above links, the so-called proof of the subject's notability, into the article itself."

I can't speak for the other editors you're referring to, but I don't believe that the energy I spent finding those sources was in vain. And having only previously contributed 118 words to the discussion, I hardly see how I'm supposed to have been the villain here.

"I don't think any of you really cares about the article--you're having much too much fun arguing. I'm done with the argument, myself. The article is crap, this argument is ridiculous, and I have better things to do."

Expressing a brief opinion alongside new evidence in a consensus-based discussion is normal and appropriate; the fact that discourse has continued based on fallacious arguments and other tangents is irrelevant to the process at hand. It is clear that neither of us wishes to waste any further time here, so I'd suggest that any subsequent debate pertain directly to the available source material on an individual basis. — C M B J 08:27, 23 February 2012 (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.