Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZaiGeZaiGu Community: Difference between revisions
no need to indicate you are page creator so many times, it's no crime for page creator to "defend" your page, my first small indication is enough for closer to know the full long story |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
::::[[WP:ORGCRIT]]/[[WP:NCORP]]/[[WP:CORPDEPTH]], I think these I already covered in previous answer, and I don't have anything to add to ease your doubt. If [[WP:AUD]] is in doubt, I'd like to point out of the 5 coverages cited on the page, SinoVision is a national-level media, and KTSF26 is a FCC-licensed TV of a scope of at least regional level based on definition from [[Newspaper#Local_or_regional]]. [[User:Xinbenlv|Xinbenlv]] ([[User talk:Xinbenlv|talk]]) 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
::::[[WP:ORGCRIT]]/[[WP:NCORP]]/[[WP:CORPDEPTH]], I think these I already covered in previous answer, and I don't have anything to add to ease your doubt. If [[WP:AUD]] is in doubt, I'd like to point out of the 5 coverages cited on the page, SinoVision is a national-level media, and KTSF26 is a FCC-licensed TV of a scope of at least regional level based on definition from [[Newspaper#Local_or_regional]]. [[User:Xinbenlv|Xinbenlv]] ([[User talk:Xinbenlv|talk]]) 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - After reviewing this article I find the references to be notable enough to allow this page to stay. This group is clearly notable. |
Revision as of 20:03, 31 May 2018
- ZaiGeZaiGu Community (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)
Not a notable organization. Running a single Chinese New Year Gala doesn't make the group notable, and the coverage appears to be WP:MILL coverage of that event, not the group running it. (also note discussion of notability on Talk:ZaiGeZaiGu Community below) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Arguments made at the Talk Page for easy references - that was in response to nominator PROD which I seconded it
|
---|
Hi, @Power~enwiki let's discuss the deletion proposal here. The challenge on WP:N was raised by The Mighty Glen before, and after I added independent media coverage sources in Chinese, it's believed it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria and the notability challenge was resolved. The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
I'd also like to high-light the understanding of it's a group that only runs one event, was a misunderstanding. In fact it was known for running community events over the course of several years, and has reach to certain height of recognition as a volunteer group. Let me know if you have any other questions Xinbenlv (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are just a few examples, and some of them already are in the reference list. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy to further resolve your doubt. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec):::I think you are mistaken, anyone can remove the PROD tag, it can be removed by you or me. A full discussion is only to take place at AFD. What we are doing now is exactly what we will do at AFD, analyse things and etc. This is no different to AFD in my view. Feel free to contest the PROD. I don't see the point of preparing a defensive arguments. We don't WP:OWN articles, there is nothing to defend for, there is only WP:N and WP:NOT to take into concern. To power~enwiki, if you wish to recline the PROD, I have no issues. I will just mark this for AFD and then see how the communtiy thinks, with better sources, I am then willing to withdrawl my nomination per consensus. Or you can just nominate, no worries. That's all from me. --Quek157 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
- Delete - per enough arguments are there that it was one event, WP:ROTM, no sense of WP:RS supporting WP:N / WP:GNG and all the rest stated in the condensed version above. --Quek157 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just adding, a WP:BEFORE only have a LINKEDIN profile (will not put it here for privacy). --Quek157 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - per evidences provided in Talk page, that it was not just one event, but multi year (2015-2018, supported by media coverage); not just spring festival, but also and others type of events (also supported by media coverage, such as singing contest in 2017); and there are multiple independent, non-advertisement media coverage; and there are two individual independent coverages (TV interview and Podcast interview) about the organization governance and culture of this org rather than just WP:ROTM. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ← this comment is from the page creator Quek157 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, not yet notable per WP:ORG. I'm convinced by the arguments made by nominator and Quek157 in the talk page discussion - there is just WP:ROTM coverage of the event, not the group. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep@The Mighty Glen, our previous discussion on your talk page, you responded:
At least two of the new sources you've added are WP: Reliable sources, so the group is clearly notable. Thanks for your work on this. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Could you help me understand what new evidences provided in this discussion here have changed your assertions on it? Thank you! Xinbenlv (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of new evidence - I'm just persuaded by the arguments made above that I was wrong to assert that the coverage of the group was in sufficient depth. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - this looks to be coasting on inherited notability ATM. Based on coverage, the events are notable (and might benefit from an article), but it doesn't look as if the originating group is. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think even the events deserved coverage, is just WP:ROTM based on promotional sources --Quek157 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, good that you said so. If it's a WP:ROTM, certainly it doesn't deserve coverage. The fact it's being covered is a signal that the group have something unique. The fact it's being covered by multiple different media for different events, comes with some reasons, so easily invalidates the accusation of WP:ROTM. For example, in US, Christmas happens every year and people celebrate it everywhere. So normally, media will not cover a random efforts of celebration of Christmas. However, the media covers the New York Rockefeller_Center_Christmas_Tree because it is multiple year, and beyond normal. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) (page creator)
- Per the page WP:ROTM, it is not a guideline nor a policy, the essay's quality is unvetted, the definitions is unclear to me. And I am not convinced it meets WP:ROTM. I'd rather argue based on approved policy and guideline. The article easily meets WP:ORGCRIT with multiple independent reliable sources covering multiple different events and how the groups is successful in reaching the level of achievements. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I used WP:ROTM only as it can't even pass it what to consider under WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:AUD. If you can say something reasonable, I am willing to consider WP:ATD but you aren't --Quek157 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:ORGCRIT/WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH, I think these I already covered in previous answer, and I don't have anything to add to ease your doubt. If WP:AUD is in doubt, I'd like to point out of the 5 coverages cited on the page, SinoVision is a national-level media, and KTSF26 is a FCC-licensed TV of a scope of at least regional level based on definition from Newspaper#Local_or_regional. Xinbenlv (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - After reviewing this article I find the references to be notable enough to allow this page to stay. This group is clearly notable.