Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Eyes Crew


 * 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this discussion defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Crazy Eyes Crew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about a non-notable dance group. Speedy A7 was challenged. My searches cannot find anything to support notability to the point of inclusion therefore failing WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This source confirms that this group has won several dance awards, including national ones. Other sources can be found by simply clicking on the word "news" in the searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since they appear to be notable within their own country, based on the national competitions they have won. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The news articles listed are nothing more then mentions that this dance group has won some non-notable dance competitions. There is nothing which speaks about this group in depth or to state they meet any of the inclusion criteria or at the very least garnered any international recognition. Please remember to be clear on which criteria you think that this group satisfies for inclusion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By "non-notable dance competitions" I suppose you mean dance competitions that anglophone editors haven't heard of, which isn't something that appears anywhere in our guidelines. This group won national competitions and received national press coverage for doing so. And there is no requirement for international recognition, but in this case some of the sources found by the Google News search are Turkish, so they have garnered some international recognition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By non notable I mean they have not been proven to be notable to Wikipedia standards either through proper reliable sourcing or it's own stand alone article.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Could you possibly add some sources to show this in the article? As it stands right now there isn't anything to verify that these claims are accurate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral at the moment. Keep Sources are verifying that the band meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said, the sources for these claims can be seen in my link above and the news search linked at the top of this discussion. Notability is a function of the sources that exist, not of those cited in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though if they exist, it's best to put into the article to help verify claims of notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done that with one of the English-language sources. My Russian is rusty and my Azerbaijani and Turkish non-existent so I would rather let those more fluent in those languages check the other sources before they are used in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First it's not a band and WP:GNG needs significant coverage these sources are nothing more then mentions of winning a youth competition or obscure, unknown competitions. The articles found so far seem to be all for the same event. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no mention in any of the sources that these were youth competitions, and the fact that they have been reported on by the national press means that they are not obscure and unknown. This is an encyclopedia of the whole world written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. And this is a band - a band of dancers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I forgot to say that the sources cover several events over a couple of years, so they are not "all for the same event". These deletion discussions get very tiresome when editors insist on sticking to entrenched positions rather than take account of evidence that is presented in the discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources? You have only provided one, the rest I have look at are only about the one competition which was supported by the a youth organization. That being said you are correct I did make the assumption the competition was a youth competition as most youth organizations wouldn't support the adult version of a competition, I apologize. Regardless in my opinion there has not been any substantial coverage on this group to warrant a full article. I'm more then willing to change my opinion but no one here has demonstrated how this group satisfies any of the inclusion criteria. To be clear this is not a band in how it applies to Wikipedia, a band is musical ensemble which a group of people perform instrumental or vocal music. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting even more tiresome. Look at the Google News search automatically linked by your nomination, that you should have looked at before you saved it, and, even if you don't understand Russian or Azerbaijani or Turkish, look at the dates associated with the sources found. How can you possibly think that they are all about one event when the dates spread out over a couple of years? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete; maybe my Google's broken, but when I check the Google News link I get a total of 65 results across three pages. But then I see that the Turkish website Beyaz Gazete is repeatedly listed. But those just link to their own article. That does not meet WP:GNG. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the first dozen or so results of that search, which all appear to be reliable national sources with coverage of his group, with details of competitions they have won and performances that they have taken part in, including a performance by national competition winners at the Heydar Aliyev Palace. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are a dozen or so results enough to pass WP:GNG? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That depends on the nature of the sources found. Remember that this is a Google News search, which finds mainly reliable sources, rather than a web search, where you will be lucky to get a single independent reliable source in the first 100 hits. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With this little of reliable sources, I do not believe this passes WP:GNG. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notable in their own country, but not in the English language. Essentially no references. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That reason for deletion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. This is an encyclopedia of the whole universe written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concede that comment is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you changed your previous opinion that these people are "notable in their own country"? And, if so, what made you change your mind? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your correct observation that notability has no governmental boundaries, which convinced me to strike my reason. However, as I then stated, there are essentially no cited reliable sources proving notability of the article subject. That is my final word on the matter. Prhartcom (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to conduct a discussion, which this is supposed to be, when one of the participants says that this is their final word on the matter. I would ask you further about what you have said here, pointing out that it's a very strange coincidence that your change of opinion about whether this group is notable in its own country happened at the exact same time that you conceded that notability has no governmental boundaries, but there is obviously no point. To anyone else reading this, because Prhartcom has no interest, I would say that this is a pretty obvious example of someone who is unwilling to change an opinion when evidence is presented that it is wrong. That attitude is completely antipathetic to the process by which we are supposed to make decisions here by discussion leading to consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to change their opinion because you think they should, nor are they required to entertain your whims. So far your "discussion" has been nothing more then lots of hits style of argument. What you have not done, is provide a source with in which there is enough in-depth coverage required to surpass the WP:GNG threshold. To reiterate, everything I have read, in my searches, is nothing more then routine coverage and limited to only mentions in each article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not asked anyone to change their opinion, but quite the opposite. I have questioned why an opinion that this group was notable in its own country was changed. The editor in question has said that this was their final word on the subject, so discussion with that editor is now impossible. AfD discussions are supposed to be discussions, not final words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete instead and then Draft as I'm not convinced by the Keep votes that this can be sufficiently and thoroughly improved and my searches found nothing better so I'm not convinced this can be changed as needed soon. SwisterTwister   talk  22:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister, as I have said elsewhere, your many comments in deletion discussions are very difficult to make sense of. Please write in the same way that you would speak to someone face-to-face, rather than obscure your comments with convulated syntax and nonsensical semantics. I'll first try to make sense of your specific points. Are you saying that being "sufficiently and thoroughly improved" is necessary to keep an article? What searches did you perform? What did they find "nothing better" than? What changes are needed? And, to get away from your specific points, as this is supposed to be a discussion rather than a succession of random comments uninformed by the prior discussion, what do you make of the sources that have been linked to above? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:48, 1 May 2016 (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.