Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Wanderer

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Reasonable people may disagree about the interpretation of SIGCOV, but consensus is with the "keep" side here. I will note that the cancellation of a show isn't a valid reason to delete an article about it, just as the airing of a show isn't a valid reason to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wanderer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Night Wanderer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, was never streamed because it was cancelled. See 8 Highly Anticipated Chinese Dramas That Were Suddenly Canceled! on YouTube @2:41, for the announcement of cancellation. Also iNews, iMedia <–– not the best sources but also serve as an example of the sources used in the article. Atsme 💬 📧 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding more PAG-based reasons to DELETE - starting with
    WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The first four articles I provided in my original comment are completely about Night Wanderer. I translated the articles from Chinese to English using Google Translate. In English, the articles are 577 words, 338 words, 593 words, and 215 words. The television critics provided analysis about Night Wanderer along production information and the television series' plot. The totality of the sources qualifies as significant coverage about the television series. There is no support in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (the notability guideline applicable here since there is no notability guideline for television series) that for a review with critical analysis, the plot summary and production information parts of the review do not contribute to the source qualifying as significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
? More detailed critique:
Ref 1: List of cast and plot details. P.S. it's not even a "review", just reviews of the trailer and poster. I doubt many will consider this to be significant coverage.
Ref 2: Just a preview, just includes a plot summary with "..." and info on the dates. (If this is considered to be SIGCOV, minor undistributed films with release dates set and a trailer put could have an article.)
Ref 3: Plot summary and cast info, with the end a quick mention: The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by.
Ref 4: Piece with 2 or 3 sentences of opinion, then the story and cast details.

With the film not even released, these aren't reviews but are all semi-promotional, non-significant overviews of the filming. I know this is about films, but to quote something similar from

WP:BEFORE search you do in other languages is so impressive! Overall, I'm very impressed with your great salvaging of the article through finding lots of details and the policy-guided responses, but I still couldn't bring myself to keep this article. I'd also be interested in Atsme's opinion. Many thanks again for your time and work with this article, and have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

"Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being
iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Arguing against your points still, but many thanks for your detail!
iQiyi
is one of the largest online video sites in the world: popularity is not a gauge of notability; it's like saying a viral video with millions of YouTube views deserves an article.
I also disagree with
WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT
in that the article would almost entirely be a plot summary. The guideline states [summary]-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. What could be written for this indefinitely delayed film? Development/design? No- save a very brief trailer and video info that is basically a plot description and a cast list, which we can find for virtually every single film listed in a decent database. The reception/significance section is also virtually impossible. IMHO, it's difficult to write an article currently that doesn't violate these.
On
WP:NTELEVISION entirely, that seems to be a similar guideline that this fits somehow. Again, thanks very much for your detail and replies! VickKiang (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There is more than enough analysis and production information in the articles I found for this to not be a plot-only article. The relevant guideline for television series is
WP:NFILM applied to this article, the sources I provided would meet the "plot summaries without critical commentary" clause since the sources do provide critical commentary as I have shown. Cunard (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG: [Moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. It's absolutely clear IMHO that, even if these are RS, the coverage are not "reviews", as you suggest, but announcement columns and minor news stories. If it's stated that these refs are "significant", that's all right and part of building a consensus, but I'd like to point out that context matters, not just a word count. If this is a corporation or product, it would definitely end in delete because the guideline explicitly states that routine news releases aren't acceptable to be SIGCOV. But the general notability guideline has it in a footnote and is less clearly worded. So, obviously semi-promotional news releases, disguised under 1 or 2 sentence commentary on the settings of the trailer, could be branded as a review (sigh)... I'm just providing another AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Asih (2nd nomination) that ended in draftify, but if these routine news releases are SIGCOV, then they could technicially be kept. But, for a show that is cancelled indefinitely, draftification is not an option, as the article is not even borderline notable, unless it is suggested that a cast overview like IMDb's listings, plot summary, and 1 or 2 sentence mentions are reviews. Many thanks for your time and help again, though I disagree strongly, thanks for your participation and work to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
VickKiang did an excellent job of explaining in detail why this article should be deleted. Perhaps you are not quite understanding the fact that it was cancelled before it was ever streamed. Try seeing it as vaporware because that is pretty close to what we have here, except for the fact this series was cancelled so it is no longer even vaporware. It got some promotional coverage disguised as reviews in questionable sources, and even then it was all based primarily on future projections, peek previews, promotion of its potential. None of that satisfies even WP:SNG. It is not encyclopedic material, much less worthy of being a standalone article about a potential now cancelled streaming internet series. It will be forgotten in a month or two = not notable, not note worthy, not worthy of inclusion in WP, poorly sourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V, WP:10YT, WP:GNG & SNG and so on as explained multiple times above. If even the first episode had been streamed and reviewed in multiple RS, it might have stood a chance for being redirected, but that didn't happen; coulda, shoulda, woulda – did not happen. Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, using questionanble refs that are elevated to be reliable, and insignificant routine coverage deemed to be reviews. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:V again which I explained do not apply. Regarding the sources being "all from the same publication", this is incorrect. The Beijing Youth Daily, The Beijing News, HK01, and Sing Tao Daily are all different publications from different organisations.

Cunard (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for my mistake, yes, they are from "different organisations". But, there are still only 4 refs, most reporting similar stories, including the latter two covering very briefly, and none of them meet SIGCOV at all. Even if you cherry-pick one ref praising Beijing News organisations, it's absolutely clear that it's a conclusion that's part of your opinion that the sources are reliable. Also, for
WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I consider these sources sufficiently reliable and in-depth. You do not. It is clear that we will not come to an agreement, and I do not want to spend more time formulating responses at this time, so I will withdraw from this thread of discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard's analysis of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Cunard's explanation. Taung Tan (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious- which few refs do you think are the best and ensure that GNG is met? I'd be very interested to hear your opinion, and many thanks! VickKiang 22:41, 22 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Night_Wanderer&oldid=1220775573"