Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 leaning towards delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fake DIY

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
This Is Fake DIY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This one ended in "no consensus" last time so I'm relisting it in an attempt to reach consensus. Non-notable webzine/record label. No claim to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Redfarmer (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What do you mean by it ended in no consensus? The first AfD ended in Speedy Delete, and if the second one was real, it was trashed at some point, and left blank by you. If we are working from a basis of a no consensus AfD, I have to ask why we need to reopen this two weeks after it was closed?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've restored the content of the second AfD. I agree with the nominator that the second AfD should have been kept running rather than closed when it was, but I'm not (at this stage) expressing an opinion about the article itself. Tevildo (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; real award, record label has bands with Wiki articles, but there's the link to the just one article on Google News, and no real evidence of anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. webzine just barely meets WP:N, label has notable artists, but its the lack of outside sources that's sorta killing it. I've found a few more Google News articles although three reference a Bis song with the same name. Another thing is the somewhat weak Alexa rating. I really can't find much else. I'm sure there must be a few links to the site from the websites of notable bands. Doc Strange (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Alexfusco5 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Although the award may be real, there are very few reliable sources [and very little info for that matter], so I'll pull the 'delete' lever as it doesn't really warrant an article. ><RichardΩ612 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think the argument concerning the label having notable artists has anything to do with this subject being notable. For example, the town I live has notable people living in it, however that's a far cry to say their should be a Wiki article about me. Guldenat (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This, to me, is a perfect victim of new media interests/culture versus traditional media sourcing. They have their own label with notable music acts, they produce events, have their own podcasts, have their own online TV and an impressive roster of writers and contributors; they look to be expanding a North America version as well. This doesn't seem, by any stretch of the imagination to be a fly-by-night or amateurish company but instead a newer music related company that is more interested in catering the needs of their young online customers than getting stories planted in the print media (which would likely view them as competition). My hunch is that a good article certainly could be written but it will take some investigating to find good sources. They seem to produce original music and concert event-related content so that might be a good place to start. Frankly there are a tone of bands and music events and generally they journalists don't write (or even refer to) the label or event producer unless something goes terribly wrong. To me it would be wiser to focus on the product(s) they produce until better sources are found to discuss the business aspects. Benjiboi 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where are the sources to use for writing about the products, or indeed for writing anything at all about this subject in a neutral and verifiable manner without original research? Please cite some. A boldfaced word, a personal hunch, and a regret that the world doesn't document the things that you think to be important, won't negate the above arguments. Citing sources that document this subject in depth will, though. Wikipedia is not here to document the undocumented. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point, and I do have one, is that they most likely have been documented but also in mostly new media forums. As their industry is music one might expect them to be well represented on the radio, podcasts, webcasting, blogs, social-networking cites. These are areas that are much harder to source and cite useless someone documents a transcript or for some reason writes about what someone talked about. Industry publications likely refer to them but which ones cover the concert business in the UK I don't know. AfD is not about merely judging what I can plainly see on the present article but what an article can become. Lots of articles are more stubby than this and the subject seems notable enough just new. It seems a waste to throw out the work that's gone into thus far when it simply needs to be improved through regular editing. Benjiboi 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • AfD is not about merely judging what I can plainly see on the present article but what an article can become. — I have a fair idea of what AFD is about. You write that statement, and yet don't actually answer the question that is directly addressing what AFD is about. So, once again: Where are the sources to use for writing about the products, or indeed for writing anything at all about this subject in a neutral and verifiable manner without original research? Please cite some. Vague claims that there might be some don't cut the mustard. Show that there are. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the major sites of its kind in the UK. They have a very impressive list of artists that have given them interviews, etc. The award nomination in itself should be sufficient for notability.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not subjective. We don't base decisions on what editors personally think to be major and impressive. That way chaos lies. Please cite sources. They are your only arguments. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a source for the award nomination - it made the final 5 in the 'Best Music Magazine' in awards sponsored by one of the UK's biggest companies. That seems to me a claim to notability.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Claims to notability only matter for speedy deletion. Here at AFD we determine whether something is actually notable, which requires the existence of multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that document this subject in depth. The BTDMA web site contains 2 sentences on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and the news stories from TIFDIY are picked up by several other sites, including the BBC and Columbia Records UK.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's immaterial, and has nothing to do with the existence of sources that document this subject from which full encyclopaedia article can be neutrally and verifiably written without original research. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not immaterial - it means that the site meets criterion 3 of WP:WEB. Notability and verifiability are essential, and I don't see a problem with either of these here. "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" is only one way of demonstrating notability. As WP:N states, so are..."the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." --Michig (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources appear. (This vote is changed from the last AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as satisifying criteria 3 of WP:WEB. I agree that this is a textbook case of why Wikipedia needs to update its notability standards for the 21st Century, as it's difficult for most webmedia to attain the notability standards currently in place for WP:WEB. I happen to believe this particular site does. 23skidoo (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep Mentioned in several different sources, website is notable. --Hdt83 Chat 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Same is true of books, magazines, newspapers, radio and TV. All sorts of misinformation and problems of "anything and everything" getting published. Luckily we can discern which are more reliable and operated by trusted organizations. Most major newspapers have blogs these days, are they at the same state of distrust as all the rest? Benjiboi 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Exactly, just as there are pretty bad books and magazines and newspapers who use as sources is dubious there are good and bad podcasts, webcasts, blogs and social-networking cites, in the case of the latter, however, wikipedia generally says they're all bad as they are newer media sources and we've yet to sort out how to effectively deal with them. I think some are perfectly fine. Benjiboi 23:56, 14 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_Is_Fake_DIY_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1141940247"