Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 31

MySpace Secret Shows – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted after it was improved after people requested it to have sources that confirm its notability. Article has sources and is under the criteria for a notable article and is supported by an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

Endorse deletion, the improvements did little to sway existing opinions, and delete arguments continued to appear even afterward. Valid AfD. --Core desat 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements were made AFTER the deletion talk page was over.65.11.27.42 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In that case, endorse G4 deletion. The recreated version is almost no different from the AfD'd version. --Core desat 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD, endorse G4. Valid debate, valid close, reposted content substantially similar, no new evidence presented. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually new evidence was shown. Check the links on the bottom the last one is new and it is by a reliable third party source on the topic.The minor changes were the only changes necessary and i believe that since it meets the criteria it shouldnt be deleted. It shouldnt be merged because there are also MySpace Secret Stand-Up shows. 65.11.27.42 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Multiple reliable sources are needed, so the link 65.11 refers to isn't enough on its own. The rest of the links are press releases. I tried Factiva and found passing mentions and more press releases, so while I'm open to be convinced otherwise, that one article isn't enough to justify a second AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says it only needs one or more sources so it is in the criteria.65.11.27.42 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which criteria would that be? WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works..." --pgk 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per everybody. Pretty much the same article that was validly deleted by AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says you need one or more nontrivial sources so as far as i can see bring it back.65.11.27.42 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject. Some Wikilawyers interpret two as multiple, one does not even meet that standard. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found multiple (2) non trivial sources tht prove this article is worthy and plan onexpanding it. They are listed here: [1] [2] Now theer are three reliable souces and 2 press releases and if you google it smaller name sites have thousands of articles on it and now its fully international with 7 different countries in 3 different continents 65.11.27.42 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per comments by Sam Blanning, and others, above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you not read the comment above. But it doesnt matter anymore...Martini833 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martini833 created MySpace Events, which happens to feature not just the Secret Shows, but also information on two other MySpace shows. The "reliable sources" in the article don't meet WP:RS; they're just articles about artists that mention MSSS as the place where those artists started their careers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.