This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2012 February 23. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Whilst the good faith Keep vote from DGG would have been viable, it appears that the referred club is not the notable one. The remaining Keep votes are not enough. Userfication on request. Black Kite (t) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete. Should be G4 due to previous AFD resulting in delete. However, a couple of administrators are opposed over whether or not this current version is vastly different from the previous. At this time, the sources continue to fail in establishing notability in accordance with the general or topical notability guidelines for filmmakers. The references provided mention the subject either briefly or not at all. No significant coverage in reliable or independent sources. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 08:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: I voted delete before and this so-called new version doesn't have much more in it. Flooding the reference section with a bunch of mentions (then don't even use them as a ref) doesn't change notability. I'm also strongly suspecting that the WP:SPA that revived it has an agenda and possibly a sock. Still non-notable and it should have been G4. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. I feel that the references added satisfy all the criteria needed to justify an inclusion, although I may not have formatted them properly. Since this is the first time I have contributed to an article, I was "gifted" on my talk page with some helpful pages, guidelines and policies. To justify my position: From WP:BIO, The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Also from WP:BIO, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. There is significant coverage of this person's work and person, in breadth, if not always in depth and I have included articles with significant coverage that are independent of the subject. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". All new references support all information in the article with the exception of a few things that I have cited. In terms of overall style, and by other pages as my example I have not cited every line of text. Sorry if this is redundant for more experienced editors. I am interested in nightlife and its culture and I hope to contribute to many more articles, in what appears to be a dearth of articles in this area. Todayilearned ( talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— Todayilearned ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply