Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oralno doba


 * 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. 7 05:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oralno doba

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable. It seems to be a lot of fodder about a failed local TV project. The "references" are all local tabloids. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. For "local" above read "national", and this "failed" project aired for eight months on a national terrestrial network. These intra-Balkan nominations are getting very tiresome - even if you don't like your neighbours can't you simply accept that we can still have articles about them? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, seriously, try to assume good faith. This is not non-notable to me personally, in fact it is somewhat notable to me personally because it is from a neighboring country, but it's not notable to the rest of the world. For reference, I have also recently submitted several random local "celebs" from my country for deletion, in addition to other things. Do try to remember that just because you may think we're all some sort of tribal grudge-holders, not all of us actually are that :P --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JFTR I have only nominated the dead projects, and not Fajront Republika, because that is the current one that seems to have outlasted these other two and may actually have a future. You know, what with all the "notability is not temporary" policy :P --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk)
 * Also on the matter of national terrestrial TV network production - it is not inherently notable. You could probably find numerous ad campaigns with longer relative and absolute air-time, as well as larger coverage, but it would still not be necessarily notable. Indeed I believe all commercial media programmes need to be scrutinized under the anti-publicity guidelines, because often the point of their existence, and the resulting media coverage, is in fact generating an endless stream of publicity that is circularly referenced. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are certainly some notability issues, but everything else seems to be in good order (Links to hosts etc etc). Dengero (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nationally-broadcast series which includes a sourced quote about the series' low ratings and high cost. The quote comes from a source independent of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see my reading of the definition of Notability differs from yours. Specifically the part saying: However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. Is it the fact that it was nationally broadcast that constitutes notability? Is that the standard other articles should be judged upon, too? Anything that shows up in more than one iteration on any television station that has coverage over any country is automatically notable? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in Serbia is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Guideline does not demand that a talk show last for years, nor does it demand that notability be world-wide.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, we differ in the interpretation of guidelines. Is it notable in Serbia, really, if the only references we have are tabloids? Sure, the information may be true regardless of that, but WP:RS and WP:UNDUE still come to mind. This sounds like it could easily be a footnote in the article on Fox televizija. I googled a bit and found one article in Politika. Is there any more, to counteract the WP:NOTNEWS stance stated above? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we'll disagree.  The Serbian series aired 4 times a week for 7 months.. airing over 120 episodes. It received Serbian national coverage. And as coverage of a topic in news media is specifically recomended by guideline, that guideline-encouraged use of news coverage of an ongoing series does not fall under the "short burst" caution of WP:NOTNEWS. Had it actually been a one-time single news event, then yes... but not for continued coverage of television series... even if the series and the coverage eventually ended.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in one country, makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. Out of six billion people on this planet, do you think even half of them have heard of whatever the most popular show in the world is?  It only has to get coverage in one country, and its fine.  You understand a nation by seeing what popular culture exist that entertains and potentially influences them.   D r e a m Focus  03:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be a TV show that got cancelled after a few months. Not notable.  I don't know how all of you can claim that this show is notable when all of the sources are WP:NONENG with no translation given.  Everyone who voted to keep: do you all speak Serbian?  How can you tell that the sources provided establish notability, or that they're even reliable sources?    Snotty Wong   talk 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even an English-language show can be cancelled after a few months. Its the coverage that can grant notability.  As for reading or accepting the sources, one can always try research, AGF, google translate, and babelfish. Serbian-reading Wikipedians are welcome to offer translations, but not having English-only sources is not a reason to delete.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH, this is not the OP's complaint. He's saying you can't determine whether a source is reliable and that it provides significant coverage just by the fact that it exists and is hyperlinked from the article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since even Babelfish and GoogleTranslate show that the Serbian media sources deal entirely with the show and/or its host, and since they are not simply pocket reviews or trivial mentons in a list or database, their coverage meets "significant" per guideline. As for determiniing the reliability of a Serbian national media source to cite articles on Serbian media topics, that question is now at WikiProject Countering systemic bias, the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and Serbian-related pages Talk:Serbia and Talk:Cinema of Serbia.  As I had noticed the question had not been asked where it might best BE asked, I went and asked.  While you are free to go over and call them "tabloids", many European reliable sources make use of that accepted smaller format and it does not hold the same onus in Europe as it might in the US... so it might be best to await input from editors able to make a neutral determination.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.