Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Wanderer


 * 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)

Night Wanderer

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

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding more PAG-based reasons to DELETE - starting with WP:NFTV which basically states that unaired programs could be draftified until they are released, but the point here is that if it is not going to be released, why draftify? To that add noncompliance with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V relative to it ever being released. In addressing the cited sources, including the list of sources below, GNG clearly states that advertising, press releases are not considered independent. Every cited source for this article is a form of advertising or promotion of the series that was subsequently cancelled.  Most use the same 2-minute trailer, and/or they focus on the actors rather than what went into the production because the actors are what sell. These types of plot reviews using trailers not only also fails WP:GNG, it fails WP:NTVEP as follows: The scope of reviews  should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage,  such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Keeping in mind the cited sources are far less reliable than the examples, and are questionable at best. I see nothing that makes this cancelled series notable, especially the fact that it fails WP:10YT. The cancellation takes us into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs.  Atsme  💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Selection of four sources that provide critical analysis of the TV series' preview and trailer and discuss production and background information:  The article notes from Google Translate: "Produced by iQiyi, co-produced by Yongle Film and Television, Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, the TV series "Night Wanderer" released two single posters and a trailer today. The film, full of details, is very exciting. ... "Night Wanderer" has been attracting attention since its official announcement, and this first trailer has revealed a mysterious corner of the show. At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view."   The article notes from Google Translate: "On October 15, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni released the first trailer. ... The time and space of 1937 and 2017 staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai. Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) was originally a famous surgeon, but was unable to go to the operating table due to stress disorder due to medical malpractice. She had to go to the Forensic Forensic Appraisal Center of the Medical College and became an expert in forensic pathology."   The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, the TV series "Night Wanderer", produced by iQIYI, jointly produced by Yongle Film and Television, and Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, was officially completed and a trailer was released, with a high-quality production level and an original plot setting, which has aroused wide expectations. ... The new and old collide in the modern Republic of China In the official preview of the finalized version, the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... After five months of filming, "Night Wanderer" ended the first journey of "Night Journey". The gold medal team and all the leading actors worked hard to create the style of Shiliyangchang and the prosperity of modern magic capital for the audience. 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."   The article notes: ""Night Wanderer" can be said to have both a modern background and a Republic of China background. The story is about the bizarre love fate of a modern female forensic doctor and a lawyer of the Republic of China who meet in the middle of the night in the interlaced time and space. ... "Night Wanderer" is a fantasy love drama directed by Wan Liyang, starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, starring Wang Yuwen, Gao Ye, Wang Duo, Liu Runnan, Yang Shize, Chen Xijun, Han Shuo, Wang Yuanke, Wang Dong, etc. ... The play tells the time and space of 1937 and 2021, staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai." </li> </ol> <li>Additional sources:<ol> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "Affected by the scandal, Deng Lun's iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" completed by the end of 2021 may not be broadcast. As for how to deal with the problem that "Night Wanderer" cannot be broadcast, the reporter tried to ask the relevant personnel of iQiyi, but has not yet received a reply. ... Among the works to be broadcast, the most watched is the iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, which will be completed by the end of 2021. According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: ""Love the Way You Are" starring Angelababy and Lai Kuan-lin and the fantasy romance "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, but Deng Lun was recently accused of tax evasion and was charged and fined 106 million yuan, even if Deng Lun later issued He apologized, but the brands that endorsed him immediately cut their seats, and mainland film and television platforms also removed his previous works. Although iQIYI focuses on promoting Deng Lun's new work "Night Wanderer" this time, I believe its broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate "The original drama "Night Wanderer" cooperating with Deng Lun and Ni Ni attracted much attention, but now it seems that it is difficult to broadcast, and many fans think that Ni Ni is worthless. However, a scene of the drama was exposed on the Internet a few days ago. In the film, Ni Ni was wearing a gorgeous costume, a staff member supported her, and another staff member was putting on her shoes. She looked down while eating and looked down again. Or looking left and right, without speaking or bending over, looking a little arrogant, which led to being called "playing a big name" by netizens." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "Netizens are even more worried that Deng Lun and Ni Ni's new drama "Night Wanderer" will not be broadcast in the mainland as scheduled, because iQIYI only announced "Night Wanderer" on the international version of iQIYI as one of the key recommendations of the year. There was no mention of whether it would be broadcast in the Mainland." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "The male protagonist Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) is an elegant and easy-going lawyer in the Republic of China, and the female protagonist Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) is a modern professional woman with a cold face and a soft heart." </li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "On July 20, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni exposed the starring posters and opening photos." </li> </ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Night Wanderer to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete per, though I could go with draftification, but certainly not keep. It's great that Cunard has found lots of refs in Chinese (thanks and well done!). Atsme and I came across this article in NPP school, but the translations clearly and absolutely show each of these refs are routine summaries, press releases, and plot overviews for an unreleased show. These fail WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG or something along the lines of WP:NFILM and WP:NEPISODE and also WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V . VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: I will address the arguments for deletion:<ol> <li>Editors have said that the sources provide "routine summaries" and "plot overviews". The sources provide detailed analysis and reporting beyond this.<ol><li>The first Beijing Youth Daily article by television critic Xinyi Ren says, "At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view". This is detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews". </li><li>The second Beijing Youth Daily article by television critic Xinyi Ren says, "the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... The strong contrast of the times not only enhanced the visibility of the ups and downs of the story, but also expanded the depth and thickness of the idea. ... "Night Traveler" is based on Sheng Qingrang and Zong Ying's shuttle between Shanghai in the two eras. It skillfully integrates various elements such as the sense of age, fate, the love of children, the righteousness of the family and the country, and richly shows the two eras. Enmity and hatred and Shanghai style." This is again detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews". </li><li>Economic Daily notes the importance of the TV series: "According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"."" This is detailed reporting and analysis.</li></ol>Editors have asserted without evidence that the bylined articles are press releases. I have found no evidence that the articles are press releases.</li> <li>WP:NFTV and WP:NTVEP: This redirects to Notability (television) and Notability (television), respectively. Notability (television) is an essay about notability. A November 2021 close of Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) concluded that there was no community consensus to promote this essay into a guideline. Arguments for deletion based on this essay are not rooted in a notability guideline.</li> <li>There is no notability guideline for television series. This means that the notability guideline applicable to Night Wanderer is Notability. There is no requirement in the guideline for television series beyond "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".</li> <li> WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V: The article does not violate What Wikipedia is not or Verifiability. Night Wanderer is a TV series that finished filming after five months. The production company released two posters and a trailer. WP:CRYSTAL says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)." The policy says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Sing Tao Daily thinks that the TV series' "broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely" owing to the star Deng Lun's tax troubles. Including this speculation from a reliable source in the article would be compliant with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article does not contain "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" about cancellation. It is fine for Wikipedia to have an article about Night Wanderer even if Night Wanderer is never released. The article would discuss what reliable sources have said about its production and history as well as the critical analysis about its trailer. </li> <li>WP:NOTNEWS: According to Notability (events), "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." This is the case with Night Wanderer. It received significant coverage in July 2021, October 2021, November 2021, and March 2022.</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * That's a great rebuttal! Though, I still disagree. The several refs you provided aren't detailed anaylsis. Quick descriptions of the settings, in a few sentences, is definitely not SIGCOV. The only critical evaluation in the Beijing Daily is together render a confusing atmosphere and [the constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view, is it SIGCOV? Then let's discuss Economic Daily: "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin" and "Night Traveler" cannot be broadcast, it will cause serious damage to the platform. The loss will be self-evident, I remain unconvinced that three sentences are enough to be significant. WP:GNG is still not met, IMHO none of the refs are solidly enough to count as significant coverage, even though these refs taken together as WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 Notability (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)
 * That might be true, and I'd say more participants would probably see your argument, which is well-written and policy based, as better than mine. But in IMHO, context matters. These first four refs are basically plot summaries and quite a routine production info, with occasionally a couple of lines of "review". Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being 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:NFILM, Similarly, films produced in the past that were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. I'm unconvinced that this failure, which is just speculated by RS because of tax issues, is notable. Still, it's perfectly fine that you disagree with me. That's part of building a consensus, and if more editors agree to keep the article, I'll concur with the result of the consensus. Also, thanks very much for finding the refs- the amount of digging and 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 '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)
 * "Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES?" - I disagree that these sources are "trivial/non-SIGCOV refs". From Notability: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources that provide hundreds of words "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" are considered "significant coverage" under the guideline. There is no notability guideline that excludes from consideration the content you are excluding. There is no evidence that the sources are promotional. Critical analysis about the TV series' trailer is critical analysis about the TV series. This television series received significant coverage when production ended, when the series' poster was released, when the trailer was released, and when the series release was speculated to been postponed indefinitely. A series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable. iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world. When a source discussing Night Wanderer's release postponement cites industry experts as saying it had been "one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:NOR and WP:V. From here, we could write a mainly plot-based article, with very brief descriptions of the production, which relies on details for the cast and trailers/videos that are part of the plot. It's very close to 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:GNG: [a] series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable- a couple of coverage in 2021, and several news-like coverages about the actor quickly mentioning the show in 2022 only for the tax issue. I know this mainly applies to WP:NFILM, but most refs you provided, in fact, meet plot summaries without critical commentary (or we could consider a one or 2-sentence description of the setting as "critical commentary" if so, that's certainly all right). Yes, it's for NFILM, but if we're dismissing 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)
 * 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 Notability, not WP:NFILM or the essay WP:NTELEVISION. If 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)
 * I disagree with that this television show meets WP:GNG. Per 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 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)
 * 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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I know you are trying to get this kept and notifying the creator is a good thing to do, but this is IMHO a biased notification- it's great that you are encouraging the creator to vote, but asking others to reinforce your viewpoint of keeping this through I encourage you to participate in the AfD discussion to share your rationale about why Night Wanderer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is a bit strange IMO. Also, I'd like to argue against your arguments that the refs are RS. Where is it consensus that suggested these are not OR? Not all highly circulated newspapers are RS, such as The New York Post. These aren't even covered in RSP, an explanatory essay. Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays, which makes your argument poor IMO as you are entirely ignoring WP:NEPISODE and WP:NTELEVISION based on that they are essays, I'd like to know why would you consider these questionable refs to be RS? VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had not intended to respond further but since you are pinging me and raising a new argument about reliability I will respond again. I asked the article creator to participate in the AfD since I have seen new users have the misconception that they are not allowed to participate in such discussions. I asked them to share why they think the subject meets Notability since new users frequently do not know the guideline that should be followed. A more neutral notification would have used "whether" in place of "why" so I will take that as feedback. There is no requirement for sources like Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be covered in Reliable sources/Perennial sources before they can be used as sources. Regarding "Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays", I did not base my rationale for retention on any essays, so it's unclear why you are saying I am. I am basing my rationale for retention on RfCs. I consider Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be in the same category as Xinhua News Agency. WP:XINHUA links to Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312, which says (my bolding): "There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials." I consider these sources to be "generally reliable for factual reporting" as Night Wanderer is not an "are[a] where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". In a discussion AfD nominator Atsme started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Atsme wrote, "If the topic is notable on a global scale, then English sources will be available, and if not, the article belongs in the respective language WP where users/readers are able to properly verify the material, yes or no?" Atsme further wrote: "At least paywalled sources are an indication that they are a likely RS, but a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China doesn't sound like a RS for verifying a TV series that has not yet been televised or streamed. I may be wrong, so be my guest and read the archived review from the original and see what you think about the process of actually getting to read the source. It may help explain why we have a 10k to 18k article backlog, and a dwindling number of reviewers." I strongly disagree with the concept of "notable on a global scale" where articles about non-English topics are required to have significant coverage in English. This is a global encyclopedia and it is perfectly fine to use "a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China" when those sources meet the WP:XINHUA RfC standard.  Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, your reply is WP:OR. Even you admit that I consider these refs to be similar quality compared to Xinhua when evaluating the refs. So, you deem, without evidence (not even an essay), that the news sites are RS? For example, in an AfD, there are two sources, all of them like SPS and blogs, and we could just say, since we deem the source to be similar in quality to another, it's RS? And, why is a situational reliable ref that's unreliable not just for political-related topics but also extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people should be considered as notable? Also, this RfC conclusion also supports my statement that to include cancellation of the show because of tax issues is gossipy and WP:NOTNEWS. Even your reply admits that the news are similar in Xinhua, to state from your perspective, should not be used for extraodinary claims, further supporting that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also, Xinhua per the RfC is probably one of the better Chinese refs, your generalisation that the refs are RS is fully invalid. Further, are we forgetting that almost all of the refs you cite are from just two organisations (excluding reprints of stories)? Per WP:GNG: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, yes, they may be different stories, but are all from the same organisations, so I'm still viewing your argument as a 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)
 * WP:OR says in the opening sentence that the policy applies to Wikipedia articles. It says in the introduction, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." I have conducted original research to conclude that the Beijing Youth Daily is a sufficiently reliable source under the WP:XINHUA standard. Beijing Youth Daily is a "well-established news outle[t]" under Reliable sources. From this book: "With a daily circulation of one million copies in 2000, Beijing Evening News has the highest circulation, while Beijing Youth Daily enjoys the highest advertising revenues. ... Beijing Youth Daily was once the official paper of the Beijing City Communist Youth League, and that organization remains the paper's 'sponsoring unit' ('zhuban danwei'). It was suspended during the Cultural Revolution and revived in 1981, but remained a small-scale operation until the early 1990s when a series of reforms made it more efficient, established its own distribution network and advertising agency, and introduced a series of additional newspapers. Beijing Youth Daily is now the flagship of its own group, which is second in size only to the Guangzhou Daily Group.'" This book from Routledge notes, "The Beijing Youth Daily is affiliated with the Beijing Communist Youth League, but is a semi-independent paper and is staffed by contractors rather than Party insiders. It has built a reputation of being aggressive, ambitious and energetic. ... The semi-independent newspapers Beijing Youth Daily and Beijing News are mavericks, yet the power that they wield is different from that of CCTV. They face challenges in getting interviews with officials, and their reporters lack the protect on of official Party sanction." These sources were published before star Deng Lun encountered tax troubles, so they would be used to verify critical analysis, plot information, and production information. They would not be used to support anything controversial. Speculation about the indefinite postponement of Night Wanderer owing to the tax troubles can be sourced to the Hong Kong-based HK01 and Sing Tao Daily. You have raised WP:CRYSTAL and 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)
 * 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:OR, I know I should have chosen a better word, but basically I'm implying that your idea is a generalisation that depend on one refs semi-praise. Also, what makes Hong-Kong based newspapers automatically RS? The RfCs linked on RSP also recommends another well-known but now defunct newspaper, Apple Daily, as needing caution, which is still a generalisation. Indeed, your cherry picking for The Beijing News on that it's semi-liberal is contradictive, our WP article states According to the South China Morning Post, an English newspaper from Hong Kong, the general public were afraid that The Beijing News would be turned into a "propaganda mouthpiece".[12] In February 2014, The Beijing News, made a news coverage regarding Zhou Yongkang's son possible corruption, but the article was taken down from the newspaper's website[13], so is one ref sorta praising the coverage, despite China's increased censorship recently, enough for it to be considered okay for political related and controversial-BLP related material? Same with HK01, see that refutes your view that these papers should be considered to be superior or at least on par with Xinhua. So, what makes the speculations automatically worthy of inclusion on WP? For your comment that the refs provide critical commentary, I can't come to see even plotline reviews as full critical reviews (see previous link), so how are these almost all routine releases (even cautioned by a footnote from GNG) meeting GNG. As such, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * <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 per Cunard's analysis of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cunard's explanation. Taung Tan (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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! <span style="background: linear-gradient(#00FF00,#30D5C8)">VickKiang 22:41, 22 September 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.