Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Blades

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Blades

Good Blades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

There appears to be a conflict of interest here, and I do not feel that this topic is worthy of its own article on Wikipedia. The Good Blades advertise this Wikipedia entry via MySpace spam, which would support my suspicion that it has been self-written to create hype Terrencethetractor 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All sources are the MySpace page. It appears to be written by them, so I would imagine that if they were actually notable they'd want to link to the works discussing them. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable group. will people ever learn that myspace is not a valid citation source? no.--Tainter 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jacksprat87 21:43, 23 January 2007,

• Do not delete this topic. I am the author of this topic, though I am not a "Good Blade". I am not attempting to advertise for this organisation, but I am a friend, which is why the article is so detailed, so perhaps I am bias. Please allow me to make this topic more objective, rather than deleting it straight away. I only referenced MySpace because at the time of writing it was the only source avaliable, however, Good Blades has expanded considerably since, now with its own website, as well as occuring on other sites. I shall reference these also if you wish.

• Hoodooloo I am very new to wikipedia and especially new to the deletetion policy but despite this article being rather informal, I see no grounds for deletion. It does not outright advertise The Good Blades. If the author (the above "JackSprat") is willing to alter the page so it is more formal and more objective, there is no reason to destroy it all together? — Hoodooloo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Even if the tone was perfectly formal and objective, it wouldn't create notability where there is none. All articles must assert the notability of their subjects. Review the notability guidelines. The only way the article can stay is if this group meets them. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the notability aspect is important. Furthermore, Hoodooloo, I have reason to believe that you are not who you claim you are (a "Dr Harold Denver") on your profile page. Have you signed up to contribute to this discussion because you are in some way affiliated with the Good Blades? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor for promotion of your friends. Reading the National Gazette, it is clear that it has no more credibility as a news source than an online blog. I also found no record of Lloyd Brown's supposed shortlisting for the motor-writing prize -- does the claim simply mean that he entered the competition? I'm not here to undermine the possible future success of the Good Blades, nor their writing, but the Wikipedia entry represents a mis-use of Wikipedia. Terrencethetractor 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the two non-deleteters. The author should be given a chance to meet WP:NMG protocol and provide a wider range of citation. I myself have only just read one of the Good Blades articles at www.nationalgazette.org, which they also referenced on their wikipedia page. Would this not count as example of noteability? If it is not enough evidence, the author, or someone, should be given a period of time (30 days?) to find and add more citings, rather than just myspace. stellabong, 22:41 23 January 2007. — stellabong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ShadowHalo 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

read my response above re: the National Gazette. Is the National Gazette really anything more than an amateur website? Does it have any notability itself? Terrencethetractor 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The National Gazette being talked about is apparently not independent of the subject at all. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable with insufficient reliable sources. ShadowHalo 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability and no reliable sources. Nuttah68 12:05, 27 January 2007 (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.