Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2K (America2Korea)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm closing this as No consensus. I could have relisted this discussion again (and I will if there is a protest) but I just see a difference of opinion regarding whether or not sufficient sources exist. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A2K (America2Korea)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Declined and deleted at Draft:A2K_(America2Korea) only to be copy and paste moved to mainspace after draftification, so bringing it here for discussion. I find no evidence of notability for this streamed reality show, with churnalism sourcing originating from the partners. No obvious merger target. Star  Mississippi  02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Korea,  and United States of America.  Star   Mississippi  02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; I could see this A2K thing becoming a large thing here sometime in the not-so distant future. They are attempting to create an American girl K-pop group, and me and you both know the huge, and still ever increasing market for K-pop. If this ever gets huge, it may be time to bring it back. IncompA 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources used are not originated for the show producers, the show is a joint venture by JYP Entertainment and Republic Records. Whereas the sources used in the article are secondary, independent and reliable from the show such as Billboard and Forbes. Furthermore, I have found additional reliable sources . Lightoil (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * those are more interviews and reprints of press releases, which unfortunately do not qualify as independent or secondary. The Forbes link goes to a Billboard article Star   Mississippi  12:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Star Mississippi, here are more sources in Korean that should make it notable  . There are plenty more here . Lightoil (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete A string of sources are being given, but it appears there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. None of these qualify and WP:GNG is clearly not met. Per IncompA, this may be TOOSOON. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (see WP:NSUSTAINED) and at this time the bar for an article for this subject has not been met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy what about the Korean sources? Lightoil (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I read them all through Google translate and that is the basis of my response. To be clear, refs 4,5,6 and 7 are all hosted on the entertainment section of the Naver portal, blogged by multiple authors. This is not a reliable source. See WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy Look carefully Naver portal is not a blog is it just a platform for news organizations. Lightoil (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think there is a misunderstanding as to what qualifies as reliable independent secondary sources. It is not just the reliability. These sources are editorials and columns. Even if you accept the reliability of the source (and I don't), that only addresses one of the 4 arms of WP:GNG. It does not address the other three. These are editorials and columns, making them WP:PRIMARY. See note d under that link. You say one is aggregated from a news organisation, so have a read of WP:NEWSORG which is part of the WP:RS guidelines. And this shouldn't be too surprising to us, because if all we have is a few magazine articles aggregated in a web portal then this coverage will have all the limitations of such journalism. We don't have here any indication of permanent notability - we have primary sources indicating ephemeral interest in ongoing entertainment. This is not significant coverage. Again, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. When people start writing about this as some groundbreaking / gamechanging show, we will have our secondary sources. We don't have any of them now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy I disagree with your view that they are WP:PRIMARY as they are written independent from JYP Entertainment and Republic Records and they are WP:SIGCOV as they are covering the show itself and not just a passing mention. Furthermore, did you look at my last link as there as many more sources about the show. Lightoil (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See my answer below. Also I had a typo in my link to note d of WP:PRIMARY. Now fixed. Have a careful read of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear my sources are news organizations; Sports World, Newsis, Maeil Economy and Sports Trend, not blogs. Lightoil (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lightoil, there seems to be significant reliable Korean news coverage. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of those provides significant independent reliable secondary sources ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with all of the sources listed above, but for example, ref 5 ( Newsis) is listed on WP:KO/RS. It reports on the topic from an outsider's view and is not an opinion piece, so I believe this would be considered a secondary source. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So ref 5 states first that this is a piece written by an intern reporter, and then consists of 6 paragraphs of text. Paragraph 1-4 are simply recounting what happened, particularly in episodes 4 and 5. The fifth paragraph tells the reader what the programme is and the last paragraph is one line telling us when to find it on Youtube. This is a programme listing, and this is also clearly a WP:PRIMARY source. Someone has watched the show and is describing it. Have a careful read of WP:PRIMARY and the associated footnotes, because this is a point easily misunderstood. A primary source is an account of something that is close to an event. It could be an eyewitness account, and in a sense this is an eyewitness account. The reporter has watched the show and recounted it. We might question if it is also independent, but we don't need to at this stage because the source may be rejected for being a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Lack of non-primary reliable sources and questionable notability. care to explain why you moved a declined draft to mainspace without prior discussion? <span style="font-family:system-ui,Inter,-apple-system,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">NM  03:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep The sourcing is wonky. The one listed in Forbes is actually from Billboard and was written by the same person as the first Billboard one. Covered in one source a few times (Billboard). Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also coverage in a Korean newspaper, some coverage in Yahoo UK but it looks like a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.