Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiev Day and Night

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. A clear consensus to keep is formed after the discussion was relisted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Day and Night

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable television show failing WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources. At a glance it looks good, but upon review there is one good source and all others are either not in-depth, not independent, or not reliable. I don't think TVSERIES adds any leeway either as the show was broadcast on a single national channel to no acclaim. Despite author's best efforts at sourcing and improving through draft process, I do not believe this passes GNG, let alone to have enough reliably-sourced article content.

The sources are all in Russian and Ukranian, so I will elaborate on my conclusions about them:

The detector.media review/critique appears to be a good source. The site lists their editorial policy and I believe it's reliable.
Other three detector.media sources are not significant coverage and are basically PRish news blurbs (and it's the same site/source if we are counting unique sources).
hochu.ua and starbom.com are identical -- talks about show's characters from in-universe almost exclusively. I have no idea which source copied the other, but the hochu.ua lists an author. The content fails at writing about fiction, so I am not sure this is usable. If (and that's a big "if") it is, I don't see any information on the site about editorial policies or other usual indicators of reliability. I see little to differentiate it from a typical content farm.
telekritika.ua is a shortish news article, not significant coverage.
teleportal.ua and novy.tv are not independent sources (they re-broadcast the show).
segodnya.ua is an interview and all content is a primary source. While probably good for content, this isn't suitable for GNG.
tvdate.ru is a directory entry, not significant coverage.
pikabu.ru is user-posted website (ala Reddit) and this is a user review, with no author credentials or indication that this is a reliable reviewer/source.
otzovik.com, irecommend.ru and otzyvua.net are user-generated rating aggregators and not reliable.

There may be other sources, but I doubt any will be GNG-suitable since the author would have likely already added them already.

Disclaimer: I previously reviewed and declined the draft and replied to user's AfC help desk queries pointing out the lack of GNG sourcing before leaving it to another reviewer. The draft was copy-pasted to mainspace (I asked for a histmerge), so I'm taking it to AfD after re-reviewing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You've obviously done a lot of work evaluating this article, and I respect your diligence, but I think this looks like enough to qualify under WP:AGF. It's a national TV show that ran for five seasons. The detector.media article, which you said has an editorial policy, ends with: "In short, the plot twists and turns in the Kyiv day and night series are so unpredictable that they hold the tone of all their fans. For Ukrainian television, this phenomenon is more than atypical. Therefore, the New Channel can only be congratulated on the first successful serial on Ukrainian television." That may be puffery, but it looks like a reliable source and I don't have any reason to be suspicious. My caveat is that I don't know Ukrainian media well enough to know what coverage of a truly notable show looks like in Ukraine, but this looks to me like a successful, nationally broadcast nighttime drama, and I would assume good faith on the part of the creator. I would be willing to change my !vote if someone who knows Ukrainian media explained why this wasn't notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "qualify under AGF" mean? Notability is about sourcing and personal arguments do not come into this. Are you saying this passes GNG with a single qualifying source? I could equally counter it was a latetime soap opera on a single channel that no other critic deemed important to review in 5 seasons and received poor user reviews to boot before getting unceremoniously cancelled. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm basing my judgment on WP:NEXIST: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." You said above, "There may be other sources, but I doubt any will be GNG-suitable since the author would have likely already added them already." I think that is an assumption based on the idea that the one person who's been involved so far with knowledge of Ukrainian TV shows must know every possible source that exists. The one reliable source review that we know about is very positive, and I'm willing to give this subject the benefit of the doubt, until someone with more knowledge of the topic area weighs in. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiability places the WP:BURDEN to show sources and consequently WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST in not a good AfD criterion. But I accept your point of view that the show has uncited but GNG-qualifying sources, even if I don't agree. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found few sources that is likely dedicated to the show (maybe you judge it). The first one is from Ivetta website indicating that the director statement about the show. The author is shown above the website. If you mean that the article needs an author based website, I will find and try to add them. In my knowledge, the word WP:GNG are websites that entirely cover the significant information about the topic as well as they must reliably sourced the article. The rest entire sources in the article can make enough coverage in their composition, not only a single source itself. Why they didn't pass the WP:GNG generally? The Supermind (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bar for notability for TV shows is very low. This one ran for three years. The show may be stupid, but the Ukrainian version has plenty of sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nationally broadcast show for several seasons. Sourcing, while could be improved as you indicate, is sufficient for verifying it meets the criteria. matt91486 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. detector.media is a reliable source.--Yakudza (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.