Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlexCab

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 two "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing of the article. Sandstein 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexCab

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

Fails WP:GNG seems not to have been played anywhere else than in a night club in 1975. Possibly redirect to Alexandra Charles. Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Göteborgs-Tidningen does not review Stockholm shows. This show was played mainly at the nightclub of Alexandra Charles, which was not in Gothenburg. In Sweden, I think the corresponding article was kept becuase of the stage debuts and the participation at her place of those young beginners, plus the Tainton choreography. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what, SergeWoodzing? Who mentioned Göteborgstidningen? Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, I wrote a question on the Talk page for this article on svwp if they Think this is a valid article or self promo. It is Old and the creator is a blocked user. Adville (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little confusing, Adville. But I know you meant the creator is blocked on Swedish wikipedia, not here. (I admit I question the relevance of mentioning it here. Please avoid poisoning the well.) Bishonen | talk 07:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Poisoning? Sorry för being to short. The creator of the Swedish article is blocked on svwp because of COI and pov pushing before I starter to edit at all. (But he is not blocked. He quit by him self) It was not SW I ment. The user EmulEikS is however mentioned on the COI discussion about SW. Please Think Good faith in what I do here. I am not the disruptive user who are investigated and proven to have COI. (If you Think I am Only haunting SW please look at my edits yesterday and his "likes". Adville (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the creator of the Swedish article is blocked on Swedish wiki (except actually he quit). I see. No, I absolutely don't think you edit in bad faith, Adville. You were a little short, and I misunderstood. Actually, I will remove my misunderstanding of who you were talking about from my own comment, otherwise I'll be the one poisoning the well with unnecessary outside stuff. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note Sorry Bishonen, but you are wrong. He did not quit Swedish Wikipedia, and if that is what you have been told you should look it up, because at the moment it seems you have been misinformed. He did not leave SvWP. He was banned. The fact of the matter is that he fought hard for not being blocked so that he could continue his work around Lars Jacob, the photos and the royals. Dnm (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnm: This is getting more and more surrealist. Adville just said "But he is not blocked. He quit by him self", with a note showing he was talking about the creator of the Swedish article, EmilEikS. And showing that he quit. That's why I said 'Oh, I see, the creator of the Swedish article quit'. Can we be done now please? Or, if people must reply further, will they kindly read the whole conversation first? And please nobody say "he" again, but specify who they're talking about. And nobody try to get in any potshots about unrelated matters again. Please. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think the confusion comes from the fact that there are a certain number of editors with similar names here and on Swedish WP who have identical editing patterns and are or were editing identical articles here and there. The user we have all been involved with here who has admitted a COI appeared a few months after some quit either here or there. So I believe that there is a general assumption amongst some editors that we are dealing with either 1 editor who has left and recreated new user profiles or a group of editors that have a common goal to promote 1 person and his interests. The editors were at one time SPA users and this is born out by their identical user pages that promote the southerly club and their very similar names. So I think that when "he" is used it refers to this group of accounts. I believe this maybe why SW has claimed he "quit" svwp whereas he was blocked. He may have been referring to another account. Exactly the same thing happened here. One of the Emil accounts asked to be blocked here on EnWP and a short time after SW's account was created and he started editing the same articles. All of that is actually totally incidental to the notability of this article. I nominated because there are not enough sources to prove notability it is a show that was played in a club belonging to Alexandra Charles and is not independently notable hence my suggestion for a redirect. Domdeparis (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you indented as you did, Domdeparis — weren't you responding to me? Anyway, I'll reply. I suppose I thank you for clearing that up, but for god's sake, everybody from now on stop talking about users here. It's supposed to be a discussion about an article. I should have said that right away, rather than merely 'don't say 'he' but specify who you're talking about'. Don't name anybody and don't hint at anybody. No more pokes or grudges or anything about anybody that anybody would like to get off their chest. This is so completely the wrong place for it. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry I'm on my phone and not easy to indent correctly sometimes. I've corrected that. I totally agree with you, I nominated the article and not the users. It was created and edited by COI users, that was the reason I looked at it in the first place but not the reason I nominated it. I do not believe it meets GNG and that is all there is to it. It is not promotional as it was a show that was played over 40 years ago and unlikely to be played again. There is no coverage that proves notability and that is the bottom line. Domdeparis (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dysklyver 23:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please confine comments to the subject at hand. Cite policy or guidelines wherever possible. And be brief. Above all, be brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Sourced. Cabaret was legit. The cabaret was successful and part of Seedish theater world history. BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, there's no evidence of it currently cited in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources cited here are 3 contemporary reviews/mentions in Swedish newspapers, and it's unclear to me if those are reviews or simply performance listings. Regardless, there is nothing to indicate lasting notability here. The claim that it gave a few notable individuals their "stage debuts" is unsourced, and in fact contradicted by RS in at least one case (Anders Eljas, whose own bio says he got his debut as a keyboardist for ABBA). Lots of wikilinked (and often unsourced) name-dropping here but the actual sources do not show notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer I got on svwp (even if that is not valid here) was "insert this in the article about the club", but then there is an own article about the club. (Maybe that could be a solution for some of these deletions. An article about that club and there are sources) Adville (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Fyddlestix, with the addition that there are only 2 mentions. The third only references the location of the venue and does not mention the show at all. /Elzo 90 (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - taking into account some questionable recent input on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.1.37 (talk • contribs) — 85.194.1.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Minimal coverage even if the sources are accepted without dispute. Whether the club is notable is a separate question. --RL0919 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Fyddlestix and RL0919. Dnm (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although not enough reliable references to establish true notability, i believe it isnt a bad article.–Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, Celestina007. But that is not what we are looking at here. I can write a nonsens article and make it sound good without RS showing notability, and I would be horrified if it was kept on the bases of the article sounding or looking good. I think that if you can't verify notability you should question the article. You say that the notes does not show true notability, still you are taking neutral stand. I would like to know the reasons (not as a control -- I really want to know because if it is some that can change my mind it would be sad not knowing the arguments). Dnm (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2017 (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.