Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sto k odnomu


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sto k odnomu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete: non-notable Russian television show, only reference is in Russian, and is to a personal blog Newt  (winkle) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the article into better English (seemed to have been translated by a bad robot). A game show that's been around for 15 years, and survived many switches of channel might be notable, even without any following in English media. Sussexonian (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources found by a Google News archive search in Cyrillic for the program title with the presenter's name. I don't have time at the moment to sort out which ones to add to the article, but I'll try to get round to in in a couple of days. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only two references are to the Russian equivalent of YouTube, and there are no English-language references. This is English Wikipedia.   Newt  (winkle) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which the encyclopedia is written, not the language of the sources on which it is based or the nature of the subject matter. I agree that the references currently in the article are unreliable, but many of the sources found by the search that I linked above are reliable, and notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that you've claimed there are sources, but they are not in the article. The two YouTube-like cites are clearly not WP:RS.  I can't tell whether the Cyrillic sites are RS or spam, but I have my doubts as to whether an obscure Russian TV program is notable.   Newt  (winkle) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the sources are in the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. I will get round to adding some to the article, but my Russian is rather rusty (it's about 30 years since I last used it in anger) so it will take me longer than it would if I was working with a language in which I am more proficient. The search results that I linked above include articles about this show in such sources as Российская Газета (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), Комсомольская правда (Komsomolskaya Pravda) and Аргументы и факты (Argumenty i Fakty). What makes you characterise a programme that has aired weekly for fifteen years on major national television channels in a country with a population of over 140 million as "obscure"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Article "smells" good. If the info is correct then it seems notable enough.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. We wouldn't be having this argument about Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This includes a TV guide-type listing of what time it is currently on what channel. violating WP:NOT. That could be edited out. But evidence of notability seems lacking. Not every TV program ever shown in any country has some "inherent notability." The two refs are to a Russian version of YouTube and are not reliable sources.Edison (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you please respond to the discussion above? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentA Google search in a non-English alphabet is no evidence of notability, since few can tell what any of the results say, or if they relate to the article subject. Do, say, three or more of them relate to the specific program, with significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which goes beyond ads, TV listings, or press releases, and which are not tied to the TV show such as TV channel websites? That would be more convincing than hand-waving claims that "It's notable!" or that it "Smells good,"  or that someone likes someone else who argued for keeping it. Edison (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have already explained above that many of those sources are focused on the article subject, and have linked to the Wikipedia articles of some of the publications with such coverage so you can check that they are reliable independent sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nonetheless, it continues to have precisely zero reliable source citations in the article. What it might have is another thing entirely.  Newt  (winkle) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentSome of the coverage may be in the publications Phil identified, but that does not prove that it satisfies WP:RS, since it could be a programming listing, an ad, or a press release. That is in fact the case if I run a similar search for a US game show, since it will turn up ads, tv guide listing or press releases in notable US papers and magazines. Stating that a Google search for a topic produces some results from well known publications is not enough to demonstrate notability, without some idea of what those publications actually say. I would like to see 3 or more refs which meet the request in my previous post, to screen out the Google results which do not attest notability. Reliable sources for either a US or a Russian TV program are more likely to come from a news archive search or a book search. If people want us to have articles about TV shows in non-English-speaking countries, they should be prepared to find and translate references from those countries, both to satisfy verifiability and reliable sources.   Edison (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The search that I posted above is a news archive search, and I'll repeat, because you don't seem to have taken it in yet, I have read more than three of those search results and they are not programming listings, ads, or press releases, but articles with significant coverage of this show in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So I will also repeat. Please identify which of the reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. I am not denying that they do (my Russian was never as good as your rusty 30 year old Russian, so I cannot prove a negative), but it is up to article supporters to make the case. Mere hand waving, assertion of notability, and insult (as in your "you don't seem to have taken it in yet") are not sufficient. Please identify the specific articles which you feel establish notability. That is a basic requirement for any article. In a comparable Google news archive search for a US tv game show, the first several pages are fansites, blogs, ads for games related to the show, or sites deriving from the tv network or production company. Please help us to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Please spare us comments amounting to "Trust me, it's really notable!"Edison (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! We're almost there. Now we need someone who can read the articles Phil cited, and who can explain how each of the three is an independent and reliable source, and that each has significant coverage of the specific subject of the article. Google Translate yields only mangled English, and one of the three is behind paywall, with a $13 fee to view the article. Gogle Translate cannot tell us whether the sites are newspapers or blogs. For a non-English TV show with only non-English references, it is highly desirable to have more than one editor attest to the quality and nature of the references presented to attest notability. Edison (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried Google News archive for the English transliteration of the name and found a Estonian article which Google translates as  into mangled English. Part of it may be about the show. Maybe its just about the Estonian version of the show. Edison (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete or transwiki to ru.wiki. I need to see coverage in English-language sources before I'm inclined to believe a topic should be included in the English-language wikipedia. Yilloslime T C  00:38, 7 January 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.