Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep

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. Sandstein 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunadeep[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH: this articles cites no secondary sources that provide significant coverage, hasn't done that since it was created in 2006, and I haven't been able to find such sources either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; further it is notworthy that its "parent label" is "redinked" as having no article on here, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as although Books and News instantly found some results, record labels will not always have good coverage about them and this seems to be the case. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of COI / promo sockfarm cleanup. Appears to fail GNG per effort above. Widefox; talk 01:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has existed since 2008 and despite receiving a relatively high number of edits, it's never been able to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. That being said, this article is highly suspicious. This article and a few related articles such as Above & Beyond (band) seem unusually organized and updated despite almost no activity on the talk page and a variety of editors and IPs. As Widefox suggests, this could be a professional attempt through a sock farm though I have no direct evidence to support this statement other than a precursory look at a few of the editors and the article edit history. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm Yes. I've tagged some of the connected accounts on some of the talk pages. This is at least ten accounts and many IPs. Can an admin take to SPI as once the articles start being deleted then submitting to SPI is more difficult (real world intervenes else I'd attempt myself). Widefox; talk 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. on this article SPAs are at least the User:Trance1234 account. They appear to be clustered around Above & Beyond (band). Widefox; talk 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyline201. Widefox; talk 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the recently deleted Anjunabeats article. They aren't notable enough to have separate articles however enough to have a presence on Wikipedia. 15:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.127.254 (talk)

Merge target is bad - deleted. Widefox; talk 11:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. My primary concern is that editors' unfamiliarity with the trance genre is leading them to misjudge "notability"—many of these articles admittedly need a ton of cleanup but are covering notable subjects, I mean how famous does a label have to be to qualify? Yet Anjunabeats was deleted. They have a lot of big names like Mat Zo, Super8 & Tab, or Jerome Isma-Ae. Widefox, you've tagged 15 trance-related articles with multiple improvement tags and (sometimes simultaneously) proposed them for deletion. Researching sources and writing content is much harder than drive-by tagging; give us a chance to fix these articles before wiping them out, please?! In the name of WP:BEFORE? And maybe restore Anjunabeats so we can get that into shape also? And maybe also have an actual investigation to formally determine whether there's an actual sockfarm here or just a bunch of enthusiasts? (Which until now hasn't been me, don't think I've ever edited a trance-related page yet but I will be now, so please no accusation's I'm a sock too.) Metadox (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metadox That "primary concern" is misjudged in itself - comment on content and sources rather than speculating on what other editors may or may not know. Widefox; talk 11:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox Fair enough, but, well, your reason for proposing to delete [A State of Trance] was questioning its notability and that's been basically the top trance radio show for over a decade, so much that people mutter about Armin van Buuren having too much influence over the genre. I expect most people visiting that page wouldn't bother to even question its notability, thus not worrying about proving it. And, ok, flag it as needing the references to back that up, but then please also give it a chance to receive those necessary improvements—and the more flags you drop in, the more time it'll need to fix—before mowing through the genre on a deletionist crusade. I'll relabel as my "primary concern" what I've also mentioned already: in the name of WP:BEFORE please give these articles a reasonable span of time for improvement before trying to delete them all. Metadox (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some pointers - see WP:V, WP:N / WP:GNG. (and for claims above {{whom}} {{peacock}}, {{cn}}) Widefox; talk 13:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "crusade", "deletionist" don't help here. See WP:ILIKEIT , WP:BURDEN and WP:AGF.

As explained - this is cleanup due to a promo sockfarm (multiple accounts and IPs). Widefox; talk 11:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metadox, in case this isn't clear, I'm waiting for a sign that not only you've understood you cannot make these WP:AGF claims, but an apology. (BTW, I was a DJ so your presumption turns out to be factually incorrect, not that it's relevant per WP:V) Widefox; talk 12:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Widefox You're right, I was speaking from a feeling of frustration and my words got overblown and strident. I'm sorry. But these misinterpretations are easy to make; one other editor has already "deprod"ed an article you tagged because they believed your sockpuppet claims violated AGF. Since I'm not sure the last place I wrote this was the right one, I'll recap it here: please (A) establish proof of a sockfarm and a list of socks so we can disentangle their particular promotional edits on the pages they've touched, and (B) give these many, many articles a chance to be improved by the improvement tags—both from drawing the attention of new editors (like yours truly) and showing existing editors people dispute what they've done with the pages and they need to step up their games. Did you really carry out all the checks listed in WP:BEFORE before tagging these pages for deletion? One of them did have a previous delete discussion on its talk pages, leading to a decision to keep. One did have an interlanguage link with a better and less spammy article on the other side of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but you never commented on any of the articles' talk pages, expressing your concerns. And on several pages you added cleanup tags and proposed deletion at the same time. And do you really believe that none of these articles are capable of being fixed through normal editing? Metadox (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding happens all the time, and check above I'm not the only one. Back to content and not editors...it's simply WP:BURDEN. Especially for BLPs. (offtopic alert: I'm writing up the dichotomy of saving these promo articles as WP:BOGOF. Until that essay is started, you'll have to check my other edits or search for the two schools of thought. Will be soon.) Widefox; talk 18:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in reading up on keep/delete guidelines I ran across the "immediatism vs. eventualism" dichotomy at WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and it seemed pretty familiar. But I think WP:BURDEN contains support for my position in the third paragraph, saying "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Particularly as it parallels the similar items in WP:BEFORE (especially points C.1, C.3, and C.4) and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. All of these, I believe, support the view that if an article has been recently tagged for improvement it should be given the necessary chance to do so before facing deletion. Metadox (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(offtopic - it's not that) The first SPI is linked above. Widefox; talk 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the present consensus is clearly to delete, I am relisting to give Metadox time, as requested, to improve the referencing. I invite those who have !voted to watch the article and to change their !votes, if they think necessary, before this relisting expires in a week's time. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been no edits to the article since this discussion was relisted more than a week ago. sst ✈ 12:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in searches to show it passes either [[WP:GNG] or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 7 October 2015 (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.