Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bilibili original programming


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 16:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Bilibili original programming

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

Non-notable video hosting site. All references are WP:PRIMARY Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The site is quite notable in China. I think it wouldn't be very hard to include some reliable refs from Baidu. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 12:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles for deletion/List of Douyin original programming is an bundled AfD for two potentially related articles. Singularity42 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bilibili, while this can be a notable list, it is short enough it can be placed in the main article without much issue. When they make enough series, recreation can be reconsidered via WP:SIZESPLIT. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing vote to keep as article was expanded after my initial vote, and the planned further expansion by Canadianerk would make the merger WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOLONG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge Too many primary sources. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Bilibili original programming" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources". Sources     Merge to Bilibili I am worried that a merge to Bilibili would be either undue weight or would result in the loss of some of the content. General notability guideline There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC) </ul> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:41, 1 January 2022 (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.


 * Keep/Draftify Article needs significant cleanup, expansion and additional sources, Bilibili is China-only, and all sources are currently primary. These are obstacles the article has to overcome, that much I agree with the nominator. But, the premise of the AfD is not satisfactory to me. If Bilibili is not a notable video service in any form, Bilibili should be the target? That's a whole can of worms, which is why I'd like to focus on the state of the article. Just how new the article is, is a problem. It was nominated for AfD barely a day after creation - and even if other editors came across, a lack on interest in this subject area and scarcity of English-language sources are barriers to improvement. So, I'd say that a more suitable solution is tagging the article for primary sources/other issues, to flag it to others, but given it's entirely primary at the moment it's understandable if that's not acceptable. That's why I think the best solution would be myself and hopefully others - stepping in and to help improve this article. If participants believe it must be removed from mainspace immediately, moving it to draftspace or userspace is a solution that would work. I've gathered at least 5 reliable (at least as far as I can tell) secondary sources after just a quick search, and believe I can both expand the article, and replace at least some of the existing sources. This source in particular indicates that they have far more original series than the article currently lists, for example. However, given the numbers listed there alone, I also think it's likely that article expansion - if I plan and implement it properly - would substantially increase the size of the article, which could hurt the case to merge (given it's a list, WP:SIZESPLIT is limited at best for this discussion anyway, but I figured I'd address this.) I'll get started on implementing some changes shortly - reducing primary sources below like, 50%, much less 10-20% will be difficult, but I'll focus on expansion first, then replacing- input, thoughts and help expanding the article is welcome! Canadianerk (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIZESPLIT. Since the AfD started, this list has been quite significantly expanded, so much so that a merge would make the Bilibili page far WP:TOOLONG. Cunard above has also shown that there appears to be coverage of these series as a group in Chinese, thus also meeting WP:NLIST. While this uses primary sources too much, this is a problem that can be fixed by cleanup, which deletion is not. Link20XX (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2022 (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.