Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Record Collection

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Record Collection

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable comedy group, with the only sources found pointing to a user-submitted record site. TN X Man 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated with reputable media sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmancoolface (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails either WP:ORG or WP:WEB, whichever one might prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete About URDB: I quote from http://urdb.org/terms "URDB is an Internet-based service that permits users to view world records and submit their own world records" and from http://urdb.org/principles "For URDB to succeed, we have to rely on the integrity of mankind. Whether you're setting a record, judging a record or voting on a record, please be as honest and accurate as possible." I found nothing about scrutiny or verification. Looks less reliable (in Wikipedia terms) than Record Holders Republic. About The Ridiculant: this is a column in the UK newspaper The Metro (Peridon's favourite newspaper: free at stations and on buses - in certain areas only) which, as its name suggests, takes the p*ss. I enjoy The Ridiculant, but I wouldn't care to be featured in it... The WKRC link goes to a page full of irrelevant stuff, but which includes a brief and blurred video clip that I thing is the hi 5 record. Do people actually watch this sort of stuff? The Metro Herald reference takes me to a blank screen, as does the Metro UK reference. All in all, I agree with Andrew Lenahan. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my entry may not meet the requirements and is being judged as non-notable, this is clearly up to the administrators which is fine. I do not take personal offense to this in anyway. What disappoints me is people like you Peridon, who take it upon themselves to make comments based on personal opinions. If Wikipedia is supposed to be non-judgmental and from a central standpoint, it saddens me to see people like you having a say in approvals or deletions. Comments like "I wouldn't care to be featured in it..." and "Do people actually watch this sort of stuff?" are comments that have absolutely no bearing in this process and can only hurt the image of Wikipedia's approval process. Your entire comment has really soured my experience of becoming a Wikipedia contributor and my future decisions of supporting Wikipedia in general. I seriously hope you don't make decisions to "speedy delete" articles based on your pessimistic outlook. Craigmancoolface (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't make decisions to speedy delete - I tag articles and an admin deletes them. If you read The Ridiculant regularly, you will know what I meant. It's a better fate than appearing in New Scientist's Feedback page. (I actually have been mentioned on Feedback, but as a contributor not a subject...) My question about watching comes from not frequenting YouTube, and not having had a TV for about 12 years. Pessimistic? A rare accusation. I've helped quite a few articles to survive - sometimes against long odds. I find my approach to investigation sometimes stirs article creators to go and dig. If they come up with the goods, I am always prepared to change my mind. There's a challenge for you. Prove me wrong. Oh yes, and there's enough investigation result in my post above to stand a little light relief. I am a writer and editor (and performer), but not of governmental reports or philosophy. I can be dreary if needed. Do you, as a comedic performer, prefer dreary? I am assuming, of course, that you are one of the partners in this venture. To sum up, my judgement is based on lack of evidence that I consider reliable and independent. Others may consider differently. Most of Wikipedia's 'rules' are 'guidelines'. Many AfDs are initiated because in someone's opinion an article does not merit a place here. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial coverage provided on page. (Two of the links I attempted to follow did not lead to an actual article). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 24 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.