Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wu Hu Jiang (band)


 * 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. and none appears likely to emerge given the discussion has been open for three weeks. We have two core issues here: access to non-English sourcing inhibiting further input, and question about the RS status of Sina. While the latter has received extensive discussion and appears to have been resolved, I don't see any indication that further input is forthcoming. This can be re-nominated at a time when more input is likely. Star  Mississippi  14:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wu Hu Jiang (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Failure to launch. Mediocre.  scope_creep Talk  13:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Taiwan.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage:   The article was published by Sina Corporation's Entertainment division. I consider this to be a sufficiently reliable source in the same vein as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC). The article notes: "According to Hong Kong media reports, the Taiwanese group Wu Hu Jiang will be very good at everything in the new drama, but they feel that it is not difficult to shoot fighting scenes, but it is more difficult to go out with girls". I was unable to find these Hong Kong media reports, but this demonstrates there is offline coverage of Wu Hu Jiang in Hong Kong.   </li> </ol> <li>Less significant coverage or passing mentions:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </li></ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Hu Jiang to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Ref 1.2, 2.2 are non-RS as they are unreliable. They rest a classic PR and routine coverage for a band that were too mediocre to succeed. What you consider reliable is unimportant. Only the reliable sources noticeboard decides that.    scope_creep Talk  11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Talk page guidelines, please do not edit my comment to strike out the Sina Entertainment sources I had provided. On what basis are the Sina Entertainment sources unreliable? I consider this to be a sufficiently reliable source in the same vein as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC). I do not consider articles spanning several years in the reliable newspaper United Daily News to be "classic PR and routine coverage". Cunard (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the 2nd time, the RS noticeboard decides what is notable through consensus. There is script that tells you whether it is RS or not and gives you a visual indication to tell you. It is NON-RS. You saying it is considered reliable, is outside consensus and is WP:DISRUPTIVE.   scope_creep Talk  15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What script tells you the Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable? I do not have this script and do not agree with this script's saying the source is unreliable. On what basis is the script saying the Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable? Please provide links to the WP:RSN discussions where it was determined Sina Entertainment was unreliable. I did not find any such consensus. Cunard (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Script noticeboard or the AFC/NPP noticeboard will tell you.   scope_creep Talk  17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of either of those. Please link to them so we can see whether they are proper policy- and guideline-determining noticeboards, rather than something dreamt up by busibodies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also not aware of any consensus that marks Sina as unreliable, the only RSN discussions I know of is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356, which basically classified it as a news aggregator with no consensus on it's reliability.Jumpytoo Talk 01:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have observed that Sina Corporation both publishes original content (the two Sina Entertainment sources listed here) and reprints (with credit) articles from other publications. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is related discussion on the talk page at Talk:Wu Hu Jiang (band). I consider Sina Entertainment to have similar reliability as WP:XINHUA and China Daily (2021 RfC). I see no consensus that Sina Entertainment sources cannot be used to establish notability and cannot be used to cite information in articles. Scope creep, as you are making the claim that Sina is unreliable, I request that you provide evidence for the assertion that there is consensus that Sina Entertainment is unreliable. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They are unreliable sources so they non-RS.   scope_creep Talk  11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said that already. What you are being asked for is evidence that it's true, which it may or may not be, but we just don't know at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, every time I meet you, you never assume WP:AGF. The simplly haven't seen it is because you don't review any article at AFC/NPP. Your's views are widely known on this point. So i'll repeat it just for you. The two sources above, when you hover over them, a dialog come ups that says "Generally unreliable source". So they are Non-RS.   scope_creep Talk  15:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You and Cunard are in disagreement with each other, so, by very simple logic, one of you has to be wrong about this source. Acknowledging that is not a failure to assume good faith, but what any rational person would do. I have no idea which of you is wrong, but it would help enormously in deciding that if you could simply link to the discussion where it was decided that this source is unreliable, rather than go on about a tooltip whose provenance I have no idea of. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't use the script because your not in those groups. All I know is the script has been on the go 4-6 years and its accurate. I'll go through the rest of the references tommorrw.    scope_creep Talk  15:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean Headbomb's script (didn't think of that earlier, brainfart)? Per WP:UPSD it says This is not a tool to be mindlessly used, It does not answer whether a source should be used or not and It is not perfect. Pinging to see if they can clarify why their script is marking Sina as unreliable. Jumpytoo Talk 17:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are relying on your membership of a (superior?) group to determine whether a source is reliable, rather than WP:CONSENSUS? I'm perfectly happy to accept that this source is unreliable, but only on the basis of evidence, which hopefully Headbomb will provide as getting that information from you seems impossible. Your attitude is no different from someone claiming that content should exist in an article because it came up on a Google search. I always assume good faith, so you probably really believe that you are making a valid point, but you have displayed your incompetence here, so there's no need to assume anything about your competence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sina should have been in yellow (depends on contributor/topic), not red. I've updated my script accordingly. That said, on original content published by Sina (rather than simply aggregated), people did not seem to be impressed in bothReliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those discussions seems to be nearly all about Sina as a news aggregator, and make no judgement of the reliability of Sina Entertainment that appears to generate its own content. To determine any consensus people should read the disclaimers in WP:UPSD, and start a proper discussion at WP:RS/N about Sina Entertainment if they think it should be deprecated. We could have been here sooner if people had treated this as a discussion rather than a battleground and simply given straight answers to straight questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict with the edit below) I have just noticed that the nominator said "only the reliable sources noticeboard decides that" when the reliable sources noticeboard said nothing of the sort. I had assumed good faith, but that assumption seems to have been incorrect. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know who wrote the script. I use about a dozen or more on a daily basis and don't know who wrote any of them. I did say at the top to ask around.   scope_creep Talk  20:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you were lying when you said that you had evidence that this source was not notable. The "only following the script" defence is not accepted here, or anywhere else for that matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "So you admit that you were lying" this sort of language isn't helpful (see WP:CIVIL). Focus on the issues, not the people. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored the sources to the article based on the discussion in this AfD that no WP:RSN or other discussion has concluded that Sina Entertainment sources are unreliable. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

*Keep per sources found by Cunard. Passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC) This editor has been indefinitly blocked for making personal attacks and not here.  scope_creep Talk  09:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines says: "Striking out text (e.g., <del ></del>) constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline. ... Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived." The talk page guidelines do not mention "striking" anywhere else on the page. The talk page guidelines do not support striking the comment of an editor who has been blocked for a non-sockpuppetry reason, so I oppose striking VocalIndia's comment which I view as made in good faith. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Examination of the references:
 * Ref 8: Clickbait site, typical of new band. Looks like PR designed to introduce the band. Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No
 * Ref 7: Event listing. Likely Non-RS. Secondary:No Reliable:Yes, In-Depth:No
 * Ref 6  This is more PR. The album will be available for pre-order on 3/18. Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No
 * Ref 5 Can't find it.
 * Ref 4 The reference trans text reads like more PR. I would suggest Secondary:Yes Reliable:No, In-Depth:No
 * Ref 3 Another clickbait site, part interview part PR. Secondary:No Reliable:No, In-Depth:No
 * Ref 1 and 2 looks similar coverage for a new band that constitute PR to launch the new band. Marketing. I'm assuming the reference entries above are the same as the refs in the article. However, none of it costitutes in-depth coverage as band hasn't been in existance for long. Its all PR. They were on the go for less than 2 years and have no historical or encylopeadic value to Wikipedia readers.   scope_creep Talk  12:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The four United Daily News sources, which were published in 2019, 2010, and 2011 and are not publicly available, provide significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject and are not PR sources. The 2009 Sina Entertainment article provides detailed coverage about the band's performances in the TV series K.O.3an Guo and discusses how they "are increasingly famous in Hong Kong, and there are many fans chasing cars when they go to Hong Kong to promote". The Sina article further notes that Hong Kong publications also covered the band. Although the band was not in existence for very long, it received sustained significant coverage in the two years it was in existence so it passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:36, 26 March 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.
 * <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 WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, based on the sources in and added to the article by Cunard. Thanks 117.18.230.60 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA editor who has made no contributions to wikipedia.   scope_creep Talk  14:54, 13 April 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.