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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Miniscule of Sound (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant advertising The Banner  talk 22:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've greatly cleaned it up, mostly because there was an assertion of notability there via the Guinness record. They're no longer the record holders, and that seems to be their main/only assertion of notability. Everything is pretty much a brief mention of the club going to various places ( [1]) and there's not really any in-depth coverage. I'm probably going to vote for a delete, but I'll try looking a little longer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If they were still the record holders then I might have argued for some notability, but they aren't and there really isn't any in-depth coverage out there. It's pretty much a few trivial mentions about it being taken to various places (not as an exhibit, but as it being carted to different festivals) and one or two mentions about the GWR stuff while they still held it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Their notability doesn't vanish when they lose the record, that's recentism in the extreme. There even seems some doubt as to whether Rumours which is the current GWR holder is still on the road or whether it was just a one-night stand. Fascinating topic, lots of room for expansion (current article doesn't even say how big it is... it's 4' by 8' according to one of the refs... how 14 people fit in, a photo would be good...). Andrewa ( talk) 06:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• I thought that a subject had to be currently holding the title in order to qualify? I'm basing this mostly on AfDs where people have been deleted for holding the record of oldest person in a specific area, but were deleted or redirected to a main article for former record holders. There's also been precedent for others who held Guinness records either currently or previously. The general gist of the deletions is that the record can count towards notability but isn't really enough for complete notability in and of itself. The articles that have been kept were usually kept because there was a lot of coverage in general about the subject, either for the record setting or in general. ( example) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• The only keeps I'm finding for current record holders are from AfDs from 2005/2006, which were done back before the more stringent rules came about. Part of the biggest argument against Guinness records is that over the years Guinness has gone from maybe a few thousand records to over 40,000 records. I'm not sure how many they have now, so we can't entirely say that a world record holds the same weight that it would have in the past, at least not for the concept of absolute notability. Some notability, sure, but not absolute notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Hmm... this article also gives me cause for concern about the large number of record holders, as Guinness will apparently help people come up with various record breaking activities for a fee. They still have to accomplish the feat, but this kind of puts a bit of a tarnish on any of the records that would not otherwise receive coverage in other sources for other reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I dont understand why you are trying to delete the wikipedia entry for Miniscule Of Sound? As an interactive piece ov performance art and installation it is most certainly of note. As a music venue alone it is of further note. It has been imitated and plagiarised around the world because of its popularity and originality and unique qualities but it is the original version of the Worlds Smallest Nightclub idea and a can still be found in operation on a regular basis which cannot be said for its (often poor) imitators . . It has, as mentioned, been pushed from the current Guinness Book Of Records for the moment but the replacement entry really doesnt operate with the longevity and consistency of the actual Miniscule and was of course purely conceived as a copy of the smallest nightclub idea in the first place. I spoke with the editor of GBR and he said the Miniscule club would be re-listed in the future. The Miniscule has been taken to China by The British Council to represent innovation in British culture and design, it has been filmed by the BBC and featured in broadcast and print media around the world from TV and Radio to being used in theatrical performance (Keith Allen & Damian Hirst) to coffeee table books (worlds best bars etc) ,

It regularly appears as a feature of prestige arts events such as Fuji Rock festival in Japan and Glastonbury Festival in UK among numerous other events, it is listed regularly as one of the worlds top 10 unique nightspots, it has also turned down offers of appearing in the U.S., Singapore, New Zealand and a heap ov other places, it was originally devised as an artistic installation in London Fields Lido while it was a squatted site and relates therefore to the architecture and history of recent east london especially with its recent gentrification and changes,

it was used at the D and AD awards because of its relevence, 

it has featured on the Guinness book of records TV show in the UK, it has had numerous well known guests and DJ's, its very popular unique and fun! - it seems pretty petty to try and remove it because it is not of cultural relevance to yourself, surely the site should be about finding information about things you dont already know about . . . If TokyoGirl would like to see who and what The Miniscule Of Sound actually is then feel free to visit at Fuji Rock Festival 2014 in her home nation of Japan where the club and artists involved will be flown to and employed once again at the expense of the promoters in July this year for around the 5th consecutive year, a point ov noteworthyness in itself . It is one of a kind apart from people who have copied the idea from The Miniscules popularity and all that jazz .. . . So i obviously VOTE TO KEEP THE ENTRY for Miniscule Of Sound - please put the entry back to the way it was, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmaru ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am happy to work on a re-write on this article to make it more in line with wiki article protocols. I'd ask editors to keep the entry for a period of time to allow a re-write. I'd note reasons for inclusion: (1) equivalent groups also represented in wikipedia as articles (other theatre and performance groups), there is a precedent for theatre groups having an article in wikipedia (2) longevity: the group has been continuously active for 16 years performing publicly; (3) notability: the group has generated media publicity, public funding for its activities (e.g. representing British cultural activities in China, funded by the British Council) and imitators. mgaved ( talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The big problem with this is that it all boils down to coverage- which just isn't out there. I've also found where there are thousands upon thousands of entries for Guinness records. There are at least 40,000 records in the GBoWR database, meaning that setting a record isn't really something that would give absolute notability. As far as previous AfDs have gone, we only tend to keep articles if the subject has received a lot of coverage and/or set a LOT of other records in other capacities that would count towards notability. Holding a GBoWR doesn't really hold the notability it used to, especially since they started charging money to help people come up with ideas to set records. (You still have to try to set the record, but that they'll come up with something within your capacity means that it's not exactly overly difficult or strenuous to set a record as it used to be.) As far as it showing in various places, the thing about that is that it has to be the main or one of the biggest main focal points of the exhibition or at least have tons of in-depth coverage about it showing at various places. There are trivial mentions, but nothing in-depth. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles or even copycat booths does not really mean much because ultimately the existence of other articles doesn't have any weight on this article and copycats really only count towards notability if you can show a lot of coverage in RS that has the people saying that they were copying the MoS. The long and short of this is that there just isn't any coverage out there. There are brief trivial references and routine notifications of events, but the only actual in-depth source we have is one news article from the area it originally opened in. That's really, really not enough to show an absolute keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment Dear Tokyogirl, please give me time to edit. I am disappointed you've deleted my first edits on the article within 24 hours of my work on trying to improve the article. I would agree with your argument that 'having a Guinness World record at some point' is probably not strong enough value for a wikipedia article. I note that there are several articles in wikipedia on theatre groups, some of which are amateur, so it would appear that this is a valid category of article. I will keep working on this article over the next 7 days or so: could you hold from deleting my edits for a short period of time to enable me to improve this article? Thanks! mgaved ( talk) 16:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• The deletion time isn't really up to me, but to the admin that looks at this next. It was relisted on the 30th and another admin will look at this in a day or two (since it's been 7 days since then) and decide based on the arguments on either side and based upon the strength of the sources in the article. Right now the biggest thing is that you really, REALLY need to find coverage in reliable sources about the MoS. I have no problem with it being kept if you can find these sources, but we need those to show notability. As far as reversing edits goes, I won't mess with them, but I can't guarantee that they won't be reverted by another editor. So far the current additions to the article don't seem to pose any big issue as far as neutrality goes but the biggest issue still remains with coverage. eFestivals wouldn't be considered a reliable source per WP:RS and most would consider Fujirock Express to be a blog/ WP:SPS. The SMH source is good and if you can find more along those lines, it'd be very helpful. Also, if you are able to ask any current newspapers or other RS to write an article about the MoS, that could help as well. You'd have to go about this carefully since they would still have to be in places that'd be usable as a reliable source, but if you can get someone to write about the club on say, Pitchfork or one of the staffers at Rolling Stone, that would definitely go a very long way towards showing a depth of coverage. It'd have to be in-depth and more than just a brief mention, though. I know that's easier said than done, but there's nothing that says that you can't reach out to media outlets in search of more coverage. (Just steer clear of the places such as iCNN, which we can't accept as a RS because they have no editorial oversight we can verify.) There's a bit more to this, but those are the basics. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• It is sad to see that it is again turned into a promo-piece. In this state, it does not fit in an encyclopaedia. The Banner  talk 10:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice TokyoGirl. I am unsure about soliciting reviews from journalists as a means of justifying the existence of the article, so I'll look over what prior coverage the Miniscule of Sound has received and add in links where I can find them. You suggested two USA based music magazines (Pitchfork and Rolling Stone): as Miniscule of Sound is a UK based group I think it would probably be more appropriate to draw on UK based media in the first instance, then go more global after this. You'll see I've made a link to an article from DJ Mag as a starter, and The Guardian Newspaper. Some of these are not online articles, but I don't think wikipedia requires its sources to be online? (please correct me here). In some cases I can point at articles which have been written but I am not sure are live online. regards, 137.108.145.40 ( talk) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• We don't, but we do have to be able to verify them in some manner to ensure that they aren't trivial mentions or just routine :notifications of events. As far as country-based media goes, don't discount the US based places. Pitchfork and Rolling Stone's websites are read globally, so they will be far reaching and they're often writing about music related stuff in other countries. The DJ Mag source would be good as long as we can verify how long it is and so on (but it looks like it's at least a few paragraphs long per the title), as would be the Guardian story if it's not a brief/trivial/routine notification sort of deal. Hmm... this might be a good thing to WP:USERFY while sources get dug up if the AfD closes as delete. We're definitely heading in the right direction for sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (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.