Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASF Amazonas

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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASF Amazonas

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

Non notable group of some unidentifiable type, who appear on one segment of a variety show; no need for a standalone article here. I was going to just redirect this to Wowowee#Hep.2C_Hep.2C_Hooray, but in considering whether "ASF Amazonas" would be a useful redirect to leave behind I found that it would definitely not be. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, comes close to speedying as A7 as db-group; a truly trivial group of people. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but someone declined the speedy tag (which was how I found it). ~~I'd support anyone who wants to speedy this.~~ Glenfarclas (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) EDIT: On second though, as the article stands Holly is right that appearing regularly on a nationwide broadcast is a conceivable enough claim to notability to pass speedy. My !vote is still to delete though, obviously.[reply]

I removed the speedy (twice) because it was tagged as "not enough context to identify subject", yet clicking on "What Links Here" quickly established who they were. As for CSD:A7, "they appear on a daily, nationally broadcast TV show" is a definite claim of significance. I've no special attachment to the article, was just removing wrongly-tagged entries at CAT:SPEEDY. Holly25 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was not wrongly-tagged: the article gave no context. The fact that Holly25 has now found context and added it to the article does not alter that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I could identify the subject of the article by clicking on "What links here", then sufficient context existed in the form of the parent link. The A1 speedy is for articles that are completely unidentifiable, so that other users can't contribute or make judgments on notability or sourcing. It's not appropriate if identification is trivial. Holly25 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The onus is on anyone inserting information into WIkipedia to provide the evidence to support keeping it. While I normally make a few checks to see if sources can readily be found before tagging for deletion, editors are not obliged to do so, and have other things to spend their time on, so that I do not necessarily spend long doing so. There are many such possible checks, e.g. web searches, searches through other Wikipedia articles, etc etc, and if one (in this case "what links here") which I didn't happen to try would have given the necessary information, then that does not mean that it was "not appropriate" to place the tag. Furthermore, I have now clicked on "What links here" for this article, and none of the links that result gives me any idea at all what the article is about. Of course other pages may have linked here when you tried it, but currently it is by no means "trivial" to find the relevant information from "what links here": it takes quite a bit of searching. Finally, concerning the statement "The A1 speedy is for articles that are completely unidentifiable...", WP:CSD A1 says "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article", not "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article, and also lacking sufficient indirect evidence, obtainable by clicking on links and searching, to enable an editor unacquainted with the subject matter to discover what the article is about if they are prepared to put some effort into finding out". In other words, as I have already said, the onus is on whoever inserts the information to provide the evidence. If the article does not itself provide context then it is "an article lacking sufficient context". If an editor is willing to find context and insert it then that is good, but to suggest that anyone who does not do so is acting improperly is a mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There would be sufficient context for most people living in the Phillipines. Similarly, I removed the speedy from a completely valid chemistry stub which would have enough context for anyone recognizing the chemistry terms within. Since "sufficient context" depends on the reader, then there is an onus on someone using that speedy to exercise due diligence and check that "insufficient context" isn't just your lack of familiarity with the subject area. By placing a speedy, you're essentially saying "this should be deleted without community discussion because it's such a clear-cut case as to only require the input of myself and one admin". Otherwise, don't use speedy because AFD provides the chance that people who will recognize the context can fix it, fixing being preferable to deletion. Holly25 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, as for me I'd not come across 'What links here'. I wouldn't think 'Here's an article that doesn't tell me what the heck's going on, so I'll click on "What links here".' I expect an article to do its own identifying. Anyway, no references, no idea what P10,000 is worth and what the heck does 'If the Amazonas is unbeatable for a week they get a week of Belo (paraphasing Willie)' mean? Peridon (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "toolbox" to the left of every page. If you're trying to speedy delete an article on the basis that the subject is unidentifiable, it's only fair to google the article name and check incoming links as a bare minimum. A trivial fix is preferable to deletion. db-context is for articles that are genuinely unidentifiable, not a shortcut to bypass the usual deletion process when identification problems can be fixed with half a minute's work. Holly25 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a few people in a game section of a show that already has an article? Are they worth a separate article? I think not. As to the game, "The objective of the game is to repeat the words "Hep" "Hep" "Hooray". A co-host puts the microphone in front of a contestants face and they are supposed to say "Hep Hep" while clapping their hands together below their waist, then another co-host will put the microphone to another contestant's face and they are to finish the cheer with saying "hooray" and raising their hands in the air." (Quoted from Wowowee.) Oh, joy. Makes 'Hold your Plums' look like 'Mastermind'. I think the Amazonas get enough of a mention in Wowowee already and stick to my !vote. Peridon (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not saying it should be kept. I'm only talking about the speedies, which have strict rules for the reason that they completely bypass discussion and notability concerns. Holly25 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable element of television series. --mhking (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to clarify that my comments on the speedy nominations were never an objection to deletion here. Holly25 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (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.