Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Events

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. The article's second section is reposting of deleted contenct (CSD G4), and is borderline CSD G11. The issues raised in this and previous AfDs with regards to advertising have not yet been addressed. An article could perhaps be written about this subject, but more reliable sources with more non-trivial information must be found. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace Events

MySpace Events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Repost of deleted MySpace Secret Shows, along with information about a couple other MySpace shows. Article's author claims the article is supported with reliable sources, but I don't see them.

• Two of the "sources" are press releases, which are not reliable.
• The Seattle Weekly article is about Lily Allen, an artist who happened to get her start on the MySpace Secret Shows. It only mentions the MSSS, which is not enough non-trivial coverage to meet WP:RS.
• The Washington Post article is a list of events that is happening in the area, one of which is a MySpace Secret Show. Still a trivial mention, nothing more.
• The MediaPost article is MySpace sponsoring a Franz Ferdinand concert; again, the MySpace Secret Shows get only a mere mention.

None of the sources have enough coverage of any of the events listed in this article to meet WP:ATT or the notability guidelines WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Please see this diff. I started work on the MySpace Events article today, and I hope that it's already more presentable. I've removed numerous problems with tone, grammar, advertising, and fixed formatting issues. I'm interested in making this article acceptable, and I've listed out a few problems I found and ideas for improvement at the talk page. My next endeavor will be to correctly cite the references (and most importantly, find new ones) in-line with the content; that should be completed today. Please let me know what else needs to be done to the article, and I'll attempt to salvage it. I think that with an additional editor (or editors) working on this article, the outcome will be much better than previous attempts. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The problem with the article is still sources. There doesn't appear to be any non-trivial coverage (meaning more than just mentions of these events) about any of these events from reliable sources. If you can produce those, I'd be willing to reconsider the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have found several sources that are not blogs and are independent of MySpace and advertising companies. Please let me know if the following are acceptable (the best appears to be the first one, so far):

1. News article from the Christian Post
2. News article from NeuMagazine
3. News post from HipHopDX.com
4. News post from NewsBlaze.com
5. News post from ToothAndNail.com
6. News post from BrooklynVegan.com

Keep in mind that I am still looking for more sources, even if these do establish notability of the subject. As soon as someone lets me know that these are okay, I can add them to the article. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment re above - all of these appear just to be "xxx played a show which happened to be organized by Myspace" - not saying that's necessarily non notable, but it could all apply just as well to, say, Bugbear Bookings. The article needs to establish - and provide sources for - what makes events organized by Myspace different enough to other events to be notable. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Will abstain to give benefit of the doubt to Vendettax, but in its present state this is a prime {{db-spam}} candidate. BTW "Lily Allen happened to get her start on the MySpace Secret Shows" gives MySpace a bit too much credit; "Lily Allen happened to get her start through being Keith Allen's daughter" would probably be a bit more accurate. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously keep It has many many sources more than needed and it was rewritten to make it sound quite professionalMartini833 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentto iridescenti how many times does a person have to say this is not spam Martini833 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, on the contrary, this is spam. The language used is promotional, and this is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate MySpace Secret Shows, which was deleted in AFD and subsequently speedied and salted as G4. This particular incarnation is not a G4 candidate, but it is a G11 candidate, containing promotional language for various MySpace-related events. --Coredesat 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed quite a bit of promotional language yesterday; can someone specifically indicate how else the remaining content should be worded so that it is not a G11 candidate? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Add multiple, independent, non-trivial sources that show that the events are noteworthy because they're organised by Myspace - not that they're just more in a chain of non-notable gigs that happen to be sponsored by Myspace. Remove all the non-neutral language ("great bands" etc) from the article - approach it from the point of view; if you didn't know what Myspace was, would you learn anything from the article. As it stands, there's nothing that wouldn't be just as well served by a single paragraph "they also organise some live music & comedy shows" paragraph in the MySpace article.

Although you might not like me saying this, you haven't rewritten the article, you've just moved the long laundry-list of bands to List of MySpace Events, which is itself a prime deletion candidate under WP:NOT.

I know you think we're picking on you, but we're not; Wikipedia isn't a directory, and unless you can show why these events are special enough to be different from events organised by any other promoter, all those other promoters would (rightly) complain if we deleted their entries but kept this one. Read through the deletion discussions for other articles and have a look at the ones that are getting mostly "keep" votes compared to those getting "delete" votes (and most especially at the edit histories of articles that have changed from being "delete" to "keep" candidates to see what's changed) to see the kind of thing that needs doing. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Added List of MySpace Events to the nomination, btw. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged List of MySpace Events with {{db-repost}} as a repost of MySpace Secret Shows. I can't delete it myself since I've taken part in this AFD. --Coredesat 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment - where does "MySpace Secret Shows tour the United States, but are also in the U.K., Australia, Japan, Canada, France, and Germany" come from? List of MySpace Events shows one event in Canada and all the rest in the US. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment List of MySpace Events has been speedily deleted as a repost of MySpace Secret Shows. MySpace Events should also be Deleted but I don't see a valid speedy reason for it.--Isotope23 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment: I've continued to remove all promotional language that I could find. However, I have a few concerns regarding this AfD; please keep in mind that this is a civil comment and not meant to antagonize in any way. It strikes me that if a person voting had not previously seen or been involved in prior deletion discussions of this subject (MySpace Events, Shows, etc.) the voting would not be as unforgiving. I do not have a personal interest in either this article or its subject; I was not the author, simply a random contributor (I mainly work in the Wikify project). Someone mentioned above that readers need to "learn something" from this article to give it meaning. While I personally think MySpace is trivial, a lot of people do not, and the article did have sufficient content to educate me on the phenomenon of something that MySpace is doing (that I previously did not know about). It seems that if voters were to comment solely upon the current article content, and not base this upon previous discussions or reincarnations or how they feel about the subject matter, it would be a more focused and unbiased decision. I hope that this does not offend anyone, but I sincerely believe it to be a valid concern. Thank you. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I dont think it´s advertisement, or spam. It´s just a MySpace feature that personally I would go, beside the fact that is for charity (but it´s not because of it that I support this article btw) and allow unknown comediants . However, it lacks on some important thinks, like info not extracted from press releases. In the best of the cases I would merge it with MySpace, however the article is too long already. --ometzit<col> 03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment First of all this was never spam and dont hold grudges about myspace secret shows also the int. shows are real the main page has all of the links. Martini833 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Martini833, if you don't want people to think you're a spammer for MySpace, repeatedly recreating a page which was deleted as spam two days ago isn't the way to go about it... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I reposted it because it complements this page so it doesnt become execively long. And of course im not a spammmer. Also iridiwatever ur name is if you really hate this article bcus of the myspace secret shows incident u shouldnt be editing wikipedia because that wouldnt make you indiferent. 65.11.27.42 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)— 65.11.27.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't repost deleted articles. Take it to WP:DRV.--Isotope23 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per sources. Appropriate for an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious repost of a salted article, should have used delrev. Jerry 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn´t matter if there is a previous deleted article. It could be in the MySpace page, yeah, but that one is too long already, so it can be in a separated page. Also, I agree with the content of this page, I think is a fair contribution to the encyclopedia and for that reason if the article is deleted myself and probably many more would just WP:BB and WP:IAR and do it again and again and again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextrevelian 006 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It does actually matter if there's a previously deleted article. Per WP:CSD, that's actually a valid reason to speedily delete the reposted content (as the previous AfD ran for the right length of time). If the article keeps being re-created without being able to pass the various requirements to be included, there's a high chance it would be salted and that those involved in the persistent re-creation would be asked to stop making a point and stick to creating an encyclopedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I read somewhere that if I dont agree with the deletion of a page that one can be re-created in order to achieve a point when is valuable for the encyclopedia, after adjusting to the given parameters--ometzit<col> 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes and no. Simply re-creating the page over and over again (as you appear to be threatening to do above) is most emphatically not the solution. If the re-created content can be shown to meet the criteria for inclusion, however, there's a good reason to re-create the page. The question is going to be, of course, whether or not the subject does meet the criteria. There's certainly a reasonably large current of opinion at the moment saying that it doesn't, so any re-created article would need to be a lot clearer in its criteria-meeting. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 10 April 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.