Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Eyes Crew (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 May 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. No changes to article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting. Nakon 03:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Eyes Crew

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

Article about a non notable dance group. All news hits only confirm they have won some non notable awards which does not achieve the required threshold for WP:ENTERTAINER. Of the sources I found they only mention the group, there no in depth coverage, without significant in depth coverage they fail WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a dance group that won some competitions in one country in 2013. Let us check to see if they meet WP:CREATIVE:

"Is the person/group is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?" Let's save this for last; read below.
"Is the person/group is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique?" No. The group is talented, but they created nothing new.
"Is the person/group has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No. They did not create a collective body of work that is significant or well-known outside of Azerbaijan, and within Azerbaijan, they are not significant or well-known outside of they year 2013. That year, they were significant/well-known when they won competitions and got written up in one reliable source. Only one source? Apparently so. Have they been written about since? Apparently not.
Has the person's/group's work (or works) either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?" No for a, b, and d certainly. How about c? Yes, they achieved critical attention that one year. Was it significant attention? One news article, apparently. Is a single news article considered significant? No.

So is this group considered "important" or "widely cited"? We have seen that they are certainly not widely cited. Are they important? They looked like they were going to be once, but they never went on to transcend that one push in that one year. This is a talented group that won a string of competitions one year. The group is apparently satisfied with their accomplishments that year. They have apparently retired. That is just not enough for Wikipedia's notability criteria. My bottom line: Can a group that was famous one year, a "flash in the pan", be notable? With an adequate number of reliable sources showing notability, yes. With only one source? No. —Prhart com♥ 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?. I just found this deletion discussion. The previous discussion was closed as "no consensus", and this one was started within four hours of that closure. Ok, maybe the rules say that a repeat discussion may happen after a such a closure, but within four hours? And, more importantly, without informing the participants in the previous discussion? This is a clear abuse of process. And then we have an editor who said in the previous discussion that this group was notable in its own country but then changed his mind and refused to disclose why he had changed his mind, saying this it was his last word on the matter, but that same editor now gives us a few hundred more words, but still without explanation of that change of mind.

I am not prepared to repeat everything that I said in the previous discussion, and if this is to become a war of attrition rather than an attempt to reach consensus I concede defeat. I will however point out that the nominator's statement that the awards in question are non-notable is refuted by the fact that they were reported in several national media outlets, and that Phartcom's statements that there is only one source in one year are refuted by the fact that a dozen or so sources were identified in the first discussion from three different years. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you come in and have nothing to back-up your statements about this group. Which notable awards have they won? National awards are not automatically notable. Nor are the winners of said awards. You have yet to provide any source which actually discusses the group in any sort of detail. The only thing you have done is to tell everyone to look at the number of Google hits and claim they must be notable, you need to prove it with the actual references you think help them meet a criteria or even multiple in-depth ones to at least meet WP:GNG. I have all read the Google hits and have given my interpretations of said hits and how it doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I am willing to change my opinion but need to be convinced with policy based points and proof. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the number of Google hits, but the actual sources found by the Google News search linked in the nomination. There's no point in me listing them separately here because they are just one click away. You will find there national media reporting on this group in three separate years and on the awards that they won - it's not the fact that they are national awards that makes them notable but that they are reported in the national media. Our notability guidelines are based on what such sources decide to cover, not on some vague idea that a dance group in a country that many editors of English Wikipedia would find difficult to find on a map and where the people speak a strange language can't possibly be notable, and that the national media of such a country should be discounted as potential sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage you speak about is for some non notable national competitions which fall into WP:ROUTINE there is zero in-depth sources for this dance group. Each source that you wish for everyone to find on their own is nothing more then mentions. Mentions in routine coverage are not enough to prove notability per WP:GNG, even the number of times they are mentioned does not matter unless you can prove they meet another criteria for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:ROUTINE that remotely applies to the coverage found here. And what do you mean by "each source that you wish for everyone to find on their own"? As I have said repeatedly in the previous discussion and here you don't have to find anything on your own, but can simply click on the word "news" in the links provided automatically by the nomination process. Those sources show that this group has, as well as winning national competitions in Azerbaijan, won fourth place in the hip-hop category of the world dance championships in Copenhagen and been a semi-finalist in a national competition in Turkey. And, before you repeat your refuted claim that those competitions are not notable, or that this group is not notable for this success, they have received coverage in national media in both Azerbaijan and Turkey for doing so, which is precisely the type of coverage that makes any topic notable.

I also note that you have not explained your clear abuse of process in renominating this for deletion within hours of the closure of the previous discussion, and without informing the participants in that discussion. That behaviour clearly shows that you are more interested in winning an argument than in conducting a discussion leading to consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was closed as no consensus, allowing for normal editing to resume including renomination. There is no requirement to alert any previous participants. If you feel that something is wrong with the process then take it to the WP:AFD talk page there or take it to an admin board. This is should be about the article which you still have not effectively demonstrated or explained or proven which criteria you believe they meet for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:21, 20 May 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.