Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav DJ


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy as recreation -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Chav DJ
Orignal thought. Article does not have refrences and according to the talk page, there is no published work on this topic and there will be no way to find any Zandarx talk 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Delete unless by the end of the AfD period some references are provided. Given the attention that local newspapers give to all kinds of trends and slang, if this is indeed notable there WILL be published information on this. If the author can't find any such published info, that means it isn't yet notable. The absence of published sources might not indicate non-notability in context where a language is seldom used for writing (Native American languages) or in areas with very low literacy rates. Neither of these conditions apply to English or the UK. I hope the author finds some citations (and changes the POV) since this sounds interesting, but as yet, it isn't Wiki-worthy. Inter lingua talk 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep I am the writer of the article, and since it's submission as an AFD I have gone to great lengths to satisfy Zandarx' desire for proof of what I have written, explanations of which are in the above discussion. I have not claimed 'Chav DJ' to be a phrase in common usage, but merely a way of categorising the people in a section of Chav culture that call themselves DJs. 204080 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: This is just a reposted version of Chipmunk DJs (AFD) which was deleted almost unanimously. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Zandarx has not been entirely accurate. The article a) contains references and b) does not contain original thought. There is plenty of evidence of what is described in the article all over the internet, just not formally published articles. Where is the line drawn? I will happily link to personal websites and other such sources, but will this be frowned upon by people such as Zandarx? 204080 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that websites are perfectly acceptable if they're not Wiki or mirror sites and if they're more than just personal blogs. My recommendation is to go for websites of newspapers or mags in the UK or with associated blogs. How about Time Out or The Guardian or one of the laddie mags? I **think** that will pass muster on Wikipedia, but really don't know. Inter lingua talk 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, if you are able to substantiate your facts and use sources from reputable publishers, then this article would be valid. If you wish a detailed explanation of what is required then i will edit the document and indicate where these issues arise.--Zandarx talk 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead - though couldn't you have done that first? 204080 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I went through and critiqued each and every article that I come across, I would still be on my 3rd edit. I first flag the article to alert the author of potential policy violations, if the article is not corrected within a certain time I will spend time going through and added the sup references. But as on the Talk page on the article, you stated that:


 * Nowhere, however, has an article been formally published...


 * And since you had no published work to reference, I assumed you would not be referencing your work. and if there was to be no references, then it is original work. --Zandarx talk 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That incinuates that I have made up the contents of the article which I most certainly have not! It is all facts, based on evidence - which exists in incredibly large quantities. 204080 08:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the edits made by Zandarx and linked to as relevant references as possible. Please have a look and tell me if this is adequate. I think it is undeniable that what the article describes exists, and that the article gives a fair description of this culture. Some points marked as POV by Zandarx were not my opinions at all, and I have linked to evidence where necessary. 204080 10:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with these sources is that they are from non notable sources. An Alexa ranking of each site confirms:
 * www.deejaypulse.com - Alexa rank 2,236,784
 * www.djtrigger.co.uk/ - Alexa rank NO DATA
 * www.thedjscrib.co.uk - Alexa rank 2,600,823
 * www.djrankin.co.uk/ - Alexxa rank 952,659


 * This in comparison to published works such as:
 * www.rollingstone.com - Alexa rank 3,090
 * www.q4music.com/ - Alexa Rank 183,445
 * www.computermusic.co.uk/ - Alexa Rank 123,992


 * In addition to the lack of notability of these site, the only reference to the term "Chav DJ", from a Google search, comes off of forums, personal sites and other unreliable or non peer-reviewed sources. The questions that must be asked of these types of sources are taken directly from the Wikipedia policy on reputable publications (of un-academic topics):


 * Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? 


 * If you can find sources that can be trusted and reputable, then your facts can be referenced.--Zandarx talk 13:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you checked the Alexa ratings of those sites in particular and referred to them as 'sources'; I didn't list those sites as sources, they are merely personal websites of Chav DJs that are linked to at the bottom of the article (they were added by other users on another Wiki). 


 * Also I will repeat this because you clearly didn't read it the first few times I said it - I am not claiming 'Chav DJ' is a phrase in common usage, so Googling it doesn't prove anything. The article describes the section of the Chav community who call themselves DJs, which is why I have entitled it Chav DJs. 204080 13:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies on the misunderstand of the references, I am use to authors listing their citations at the bottom. The links to Encarta and BBC are valid, and good examples of proper citations, but the links to Yourtube, bolt, bebo, mixstreet and myspace are invalid references and cannot be used. You will have to find more reputable publications to cite those facts (that is, for the ones not used for example purposes). --Zandarx talk 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The links to audio/visual sites such as Youtube or Bolt were there so users could hear examples of the work, with the out of time and out of tune acapellas that you had told me were my POV. The links to various pages within Mixstreet were to show the geographical locations of the DJs, which you had said need Citation, and also to show the software used by them, and their use of the logo as described in the article. The link to 'DJ Rankin's personal Bebo site was to show the large number of fans he has, another fact I gave that you said needed citation. I also linked to a couple of pages within 'DJ-Rankin.net', a site created by US based internet user who was struck by DJ Rankin's strange popularity considering the poor quality of his music. His site contains many accurate details and an FAQ regarding Chav DJ culture, which is why I linked to it. I hope now you will understand that although maybe not as reliable a source as you'd have liked, the information contained within these sites is proof enough of the facts I have stated in the article. I am going to be away for a week, so would appreciate it if the article remained in place at least until my return when I will clear up any further claimed discrepancies. 204080 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.