Linlang (2023 TV series) : The article does not discuss significant coverage by reliable sources because the only coverage is advance publicity, which is not notable and may be promotional .   There is also a draft; the draft was copied into article space by the draft originator to create the article.   A draft is in order, because the show will be aired, and there will be reviews.   This article should be deleted, and the draft left alone to wait for the show to air.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose : too soon is not policy it is not an issue that the articles used in reference are promotional, so long as they are being used appropriately in support of NPOV claims, as appears to be the case here.  WP:PROMO is a policy purposed at preventing WP articles that are themselves promotional, and the tone of this article as written is not overly promotional here; to the extent that it is, it is salvageable I am satisfied that SIGCOV re: this upcoming series has been established by a collective assessment of these three sources Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Jack, you've made numerous keep (or so you put it, oppose) votes with shaky reasoning that doesn't necessarily comply with policy.  Yes, WP:TOOSOON is an essay, but it's basically the shorter way of saying that there likely isn't enough sources to be notable because whatever it is hasn't happened yet.  This is similar to a lot of essays that are used in deletion debates; they're used to save time typing.  WP:SIGCOV outlines that articles need to have at least two pieces of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  With the three that you have highlighted, the first is too short (i.e. not significant) and the other two contain a large amount of interview (i.e. not independent) The claim that "it is not an issue that the articles used in reference are promotional, so long as they are being used appropriately" is outright false, it is flies directly in the face of the "independent of the subject" part of SIGCOV.  I would recommend reading policy properly and basing ! vote arguments around policy in the future, before making ! votes that contradict policy.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) The essay's thesis that "there likely isn't enough sources to be notable because whatever it is hasn't happened yet" isn't relevant to my comment above, because my comment above was claiming that the references contained within the article are already enough to support notability to the SIGCOV threshold  2) I agree with your assessment regarding that the: "first is too short (i.e. not significant) and the other two contain a large amount of interview".  Nevertheless, the deficiencies in these sources I think, is able to be overcome by a collective assessment of them all together.  More than the sum of its parts, etcetera.  In any event, such an assessment is clearly a subjective one, so I'd ask you to refrain from claiming that my reasons are contradictory to policy when clearly they are written to comply with policy.  3) It isn't an issue that articles are promotional in tone; plenty of media reporting uses positive/excited language to describe incoming programs to their readers, even when that reporting is independent of the show being reported on.  I don't think it would be fair to assume the articles are advertising or that there is a commercial relationship going on here; so I think it is fair to see them as independent, while being fluffy and excited in tone.  With that in mind, a judicious editor may be able to use those articles as a source for reasonable and defensible claims about a subject Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was explaining what the essay is used for, as a shorthand for a certain type of article, rather than what is actually meant by the essay.  Also, I've noticed numerous ! votes that you've made regarding a "collective assessment" of sources for WP:GNG , which isn't how that policy is written.  It's made clear in the first sentence that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  No strange "collective assessment" of sources, mashing together multiple sources that all clearly fail WP:SIGCOV , which isn't how that policy is interpreted.  Sources that are promotional in nature cannot be used for sourcing, as there are just too many issues with them, as they will often use WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL to make things sound better than they are and ignore things that are bad.  I guess some very experienced editors would be able to extract the truth in the content, but this is a notability discussion, not a content dispute, and sometimes these sources say things that are plain false.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage is a flexible enough concept that it can be constructively reached by a combination of multiple other independent sources; that aren't sig cov individually Whole more than the sum of its parts, etcetera Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:TVSERIES , also WP:TOOSOON per nom.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 09:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:TOOSOON , JML1148 also covers the salient points as well.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 10:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per nom.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lenticel : The draft of the article already exist.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 05:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, then we should delete it from mainspace for now and move the draft back when it we have better sources.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:02, 16 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete