Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShipRocked

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. ansh 666 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShipRocked

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

The article has almost no sources besides press release from Ashton-Magnuson Media. All other sources are announcements. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Creator is an undisclosed paid editor. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I almost requested this be speedily deleted under CSD A7. Decided I wasn't quite comfortable doing that, that recurring annually for a decade might be a valid claim to significance. Either way, definitely agree this doesn't demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for speedy deletion under G11. That was declined as "speedy declined. not blatant advertising, at least not enough for speedy deletion". Fair enough, if you think that announcing your company's next upcoming event is not blatant advertising, or not all of the article is advertising because it also contains a list of previous events. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion. Assuming for purposes of argument that this is a notable event, wouldn't you expect an article about it to list the previous occurrences and the next scheduled occurrence? The statements are factual in form. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No, I wouldn't. I would expect only those events to be listed that can be sourced to independent, reliable media, and I would not expect future events to be listed at all, unless there is clear evidence that the preparations themselves have been covered in such sources, akin to how we only write about upcoming movies if principal photography has been completed (and written about). Vexations (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources now in the article do not establish its notability (ehich is why I tagged it for possible lack of notability). However, was a WP:BEFORE search done? It isn't mentioned in the nomination statement. What sort of search did you do, Vexations? Alos, saying that the creator is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious accusation. Is there any evidence for it? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel What sort of search did you do My process for new page review is supported by a set of tools I developed specifically for my own use at NPP. I read every (online) source, check it against the claims, and then check all of the sources to see if, where, and how often they have been used in other articles and look for indications of independence and reliability. I enter every source that I assess in a database, with notes and rankings for reliability and independence. When I encounter a source again, I can assure myself that I treat those sources consistently and maintain a level of integrity that I find fitting for a reviewer. To comply with WP:BEFORE (which isn't policy BTW) I use {{Find sources}} and sometimes, when warranted, my subscriptions of to Gale, JSTOR and OneFile. I'm happy to explain how I review further if you like, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence for it?Yes, there is, here.

Thank you, Vexations. That sounds rather more meticulous than many AfD nominators are. WP:BEFOrE may not be strictly policy, but I think it is petty clearly implied by the deletion policy and particularly the section WP:ATD, which says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I am glad that you do make such a search. I tend to regard AfD noms on notability grounds which do not mention a BEFORE search as flawed if not invalid. You cause me to incline more to deletion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (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.