Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZaiGeZaiGu Community

ZaiGeZaiGu Community

(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)[reply]

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:

significant coverage in
multiple,
independent,
reliable,
secondary sources.

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)[reply]

Zero WP:RS that cover in depth, one event. Support the PROD. I'm watching these a few days thinking whether to CSD / AFD it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references that discuss this group outside the context of their 2018 event? As the group was founded in 2016, I expect it is WP:TOOSOON for there to be sufficient coverage of the group to meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it toosoon, it just a midly promotional one, I read through all are just ticketing or promotional websites that should really do a G11. But I know can't. --Quek157 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example to defend the accusation of "Zero coverage in depth" and "it only covers 2018". Xinbenlv (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a media coverage by USChinaPress.com that mentioned the group starts in 2015, and was expanded in 2017 in the local language.

WP:ROTM coverage --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another media coverage by soho.com about its singing contest in June, 2017.

we don't accept advertisement as a RS --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a independent secondary coverage, not an advertisement. May I humbly challenge that the way you attack these coverages as not good source, are all very subjective views, unsupported and quite biased. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a broadcast by BeiMeiKaoPuQingNian podcast station interviewing leader of the community member about how it organize the volunteers and reach to this level.

neither an interview which only duty is to promote the group --Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick response. That's a mis-perception the interview is about promoting the group. It does give credit but it's a legitimate neutral media coverage trying to learn about the group (and this was also to address the WP:ROTM because it was not directly related only one regular event it does. In addition, there is also a TV interview by KTSF as listed in the reference too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't wish to continue anymore, if you want, delete the PROD, if not keep it and let an admin judge, this is really an AFD where PROD should be for uncontroversial deletions, if there is so much contentions, I rather put it to the community. So what is your decision, still contesting? Then I will remove the PROD and sent this to AFD, if not, enough arguments are there that it was one event, WP:ROTM, no sense of WP:RS supporting WP:N / WP:GNG (exact words for AFD nomination). To add, I had read clearly all the sources in depth. And I am no friend of deletion. I had argued strongly for inclusion in all, seeking WP:ATD as far as possible. Baseless accusation of me being biased. I am one of the most objective when coming into deletion arguments and will try my very best to argue until fail. Attacking sources? Nope. I'm analyzing them. I am doing AFD discussion since 2007 anyway.--Quek157 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard what you said Quek157. I didn't question your good-faith. I was just challenging the way you attack my evidence's legitimacy. I didn't intent to contest the PROD here. I was soliciting suggestions for clarification needed. I think we should let the PROD run for a while to collect more input before removing the PROD from different people. For example, I'd like to wait for power~enwiki for what he/she thinks about my evidences provided here. And if it turns out it has to go to AofD, I'd like to learn more to prepare a better defensive argument too. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An archived version of a Facebook post is not going to be the least bit useful. As far as your other points, as I assume you want to discuss them, I'll convert to an AfD and they can be discussed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing this article I find the references to be notable enough to allow this page to stay. This group is clearly notable.