Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCSTV New Year's Gala

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CCSTV New Year's Gala

CCSTV New Year's Gala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While by no means an expert on Chinese media, I don't believe that this webcast satisfies WP:WEB. The only English-langauge reference in the article that is actually about the webcast is from the "Beijing Today" website [1]. This website is apparently an official publication of the Chinese government, so we have one mention in a (presumably) reliable third-party source. If the Chinese-language reference ([2]]) is equally reliable, the article may satisfy the criterion; however, I can't immediately find any references to this site or the organization behind it, and am unfortunately unable to read the site itself. Intrinsically, the webcast doesn't appear notable; a parody/alternative version of a major national TV show that a satellite TV station was potentially (but not actually) interested in sponsoring would _not_ be at all notable in the USA or Europe, but I appreciate that China may be different. My opinion is Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with your suggestion if it's only based on the number of English sources. There were four English-language references in the article, those numbering 1-4 in the references:

1. ^ "'Shanzhai': Faking it for money or fun?", China Economic Net (10 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

2. ^ "Touch Beijing (感受北京)", Radio 774 (外语网络电台) (30 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

3. ^ a b c d "CCTV New Year gala to showcase grassroots talent", China Daily (24 December 2008). Retrieved on 5 January 2009.

4. ^ a b "Robin-hood Chinese New Year's Gala challenges CCTV", Beijing Today (12 December 2008). Retrieved on 6 January 2009.

Additionally, any news source within China is going to be from state-run media.

I personally think that this should go back under Shanzhai, as I did when I initially inquired as to whether others thought that it should be deleted. (At the time, the information was duplicated there.) Still, I'd rather your response after knowing that there is more than one English source. L ^talk 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently there are more than one English-language reference in this article. Besides Beijing Today, there are also China Economic Net (sponsored by Economic Daily, a major newspaper in China), Radio 774 (a radio station run by Beijing Government), and China Daily. The Chinese reference is from Jinghua Times, a major newspaper in Beijing. The references have already established the notability of this gala.--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. The China Economic Net article just includes the webcast as an example of Shanzhai (so I wouldn't call it _substantial_ coverage), the China Daily article is a press release by the organizer (and therefore not a _third party_ source). The issue with the other two references is the reliability of the sources. We have a very basic article on Radio 774, which would suggest that it's a potentially valid source, but no article on the Jinghua Times, and I can't seem to find anything obvious on-line about that newspaper with an English-language Google search. That being said, the radio interview and the Beijing Today article are probably enough to pass WP:WEB. However, I would agree with Alainna that the "Subculture" section of the Shanzhai article would be a better place for a mention of the webcast as things stand; perhaps things may change after the broadcast. Tevildo (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Jinghua Times should actually be the Beijing Times. (Per English Google search: 京华网(Jinghua Wang -- Jinghua Online) —京华时报 (Jinghua Shibao -- Jinghua Times/Beijing Times) http://www.beijingtimes.com.cn) My fault for the false translation, which I haven't yet corrected. (You'll note that it does appear Newspapers of the People's Republic of China.) L ^talk 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Arilang ^talk 19:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The webcast is notable because of the stature of the gala it's trying to imitate. The original CCTV New Year's Gala is watched by an estimated 700 million people every year. This is not just a major TV show: it's the only TV show available in China on New Year's Eve, and more than half of the population of China watches it. In proportion of the population, it's even bigger than the Superbowl, America's most watched TV program. There is nothing comparable in Europe and America. The webcast is generating a lot of interest because it's the first time someone puts together an alternative to the huge state-sponsored show. With this in mind and in the presence of four English-language references, I say keep without hesitation. Madalibi (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think that this goes better under Shanzhai, but I do not mind it being its own article. I think that if it gets more press following its broadcast, then it would be better used as its own article. L ^talk 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable by the fact it is a parody of a very major tv program in china(CCTV New Year's Gala).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentI would say the above statement would set very bad precedents, however that's different from delete. Usually, I'd go with the "should wait until event actually happens and then create an article" stance, but since Wikipedia has geographical bias, and I don't know the extent of it personally, I'm neutral on this. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:00, 14 January 2009 (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.