Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Urban Dance Factory

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Urban Dance Factory[edit]

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

Zero independent RS. Prod removed with irrelevant statement. —swpb^T 13:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending source check: Creator appears to be a newbie. I am going to notify them that they need to add additional sources to the article and see what happens. swpb, did you do your WP:BEFORE search? After eliminating the cruftlinks in a search, I found some sources, but I don't speak Spanish, so someone else will have to assess. Here's what I have found and they look independent of the subject and to be more than a mere directory listing (of which there were dozens). [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (the last few are dancer bios, apparently listing the place on their resume -- there were at least another dozen of those pages beyond what I put in here) Montanabw ^(talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did BEFORE, and not one of the links you gave constitute significant coverage in a reliable source.

[9] offers no evidence of reliability; the text there is most-likely written by someone connected to the subject.
[10] is an employment website—not an RS.
[11] gives the most passing of mentions, not significant coverage.
[12] doesn't offer evidence of being reliable, and only includes a passing mention.

I don't intend to break down the flaws with every single page Google spits back; if you want to argue that sufficient sources exist, you need to be able to point to them. Simply throwing numbers of Ghits out, without investigating them, adds no value to this discussion. By the way, your browser almost certainly supports translation of pages to English. It's not perfect, but it's more than good enough to figure out whether a page is likely to be an RS, or offers coverage of any significance. —swpb^T 13:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You look at four examples but cannot be bothered to look over the rest? Seriously? I did investigate them running some through translation, and I disgree with your assessment. What I found were that there were dozens more of these dancer resumes on these "employment" pages (as you call them) that list this program, and I only pulled a smattering. The "passing mentions" are more than adequate to me, and when you look at the sheer number of people who credit this program for their training, it is clear that this program has a strong reputation for what it does within its niche. My view is that WP:N is met. Places like this are often harder to find coverage on than the artists they produce. I have stated my view on this matter and I see no reason to change it, so I suggest we simply wait for others to weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor Montanabw: I looked carefully at every single link you posted (which I consider to be far beyond due diligence, given your demonstrated lack of ability to discriminate), and they're all worthless; I didn't bother to write about every single one, because I'd be repeating myself. You may consider a passing mention "significant coverage", but that's not what WP:GNG says. You may consider a job posting site with an obvious financial connection to be an RS, but that's not what WP:BIAS says. Not only are these things disallowed in guidelines, they've never been allowed in practice. (Not that you'd be aware of that; guidelines and precedents you don't like don't seem to exist to you). So no, N is not even close to met. And yes, we'll wait for someone else to tell you that. —swpb^T 15:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You see, you really must stop personalizing this. I advise you to lay of the personal attacks. We disagree, that's all. This disagreement does not mean that either of us somehow have personal failings in the civility or intellect department. So stop making "you" statements. Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Swpb is mean" isn't an argument for "keep", and "we disagree" is an attempt to create false equivalence. There is no equivalence. The wiki meaning of the words "reliable", "independent", and "significant" are not up for renegotiation in every AfD. —swpb^T 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not twist my words. The bottom line is that WP:NPA is policy, just as WP:N is policy. So you can disagree and argue without personalizing things. If you can't make your argument without attacking the other person, then you don't have much of an argument. Now, let's allow others to weigh in on the issue. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim of notability whatsoever, none of the sources mentioned above consists of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source and none of them confers notability. The page is just unverifiable fuss and pure promotionalism. In my searches I have found anything but false positives and unreliable/ primary sources. Cavarrone 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH by a wide margin. Organisations/companies require in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This is clearly lacking here. The sources are either passing mentions or non-RS. The intent here also seems to be to promote the school. Delete as clearly not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references do not show notable , and I agree with }}U|Lemongirl942}} that the article is considerably promotional DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (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.