Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ding Day


 * 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. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  05:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ding Day

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about an event was created by an editor from WildKatPR, the PR company set up by Kathleen Alder, who co-founded this event. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It was prodded, but a single purpose account remove the notice. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability through reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree, could find no inforation about the cycling  event as of today.  However, after next years competition (if it generates enough coverage), hope to read about it here at Wikipedia.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per reasons above. Notability not established and I catch a whiff of WP:COI here too. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a well established event, with Chris Hoy, Boris Johnson and the London Cycling Campaign as supporters. Decent amount of coverage can be found already for this year online and whilst I am the founder of WildKat PR that does not mean that we cannot have private passions. I work in completely different field in my normal job and we are all doing this for fun. Non profit and just a great idea. We will be adding more articles throughout the week... kathleen.alder (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - We are part of this over the London Cycling Campaign since last year and can confirm the press coverage as well, would be a shame to not include it . sanjasavjec (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Show us multiple examples of significant press coverage here and now, or the article gets deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote events. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - To use a state-side term here - Whoaaaaaa there   Fences  &amp;  Windows  as an editor here on Wikipedia, your first obligation is to Assume Good Faith.  Second, it is not the responsibility of ONE individual to produce evidence of notability but the responsibility of the individual proposing the deletion to support the reasons of why NOT the article does not meet current Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion as listed in Before.  With regards to significant press coverage, that is a PERSONAL standard, any and all individuals expressing a KEEP or DELETE opinion must support that.  Finally, in expressing our opinions, I have always been instructed  Do Not Bite The Newbies.  Relax - kick back and hopefully, as I expressed above, this article will be part of, and a FA, next year.  Thanks,  ShoesssS Talk 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did look for sources and came up blank. WP:NOTABILITY isn't a "personal standard", it is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". There's a good essay on notability here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Guys, I appreciate your comments and thanks for the feedback. ANyone who has researched Ding Day has found enough sources to make it notable, even 2009 has already achieved decent coverage in blogs and online papers. In 2008 the press coverage included Time Out, BBC Radio London, Metro London NEwspaper and countless blogs of which a few we added to the page. However, many such as Time Out and Metro are no longer live online or never excited online... I think it is great how you censor articles and all get involved, but you are clearly digging here at the wrong point. Even just by putting Ding Day in google you should realize there is enough to support the case. So anyone else got anything substantial why this page shouldnt remain up there? --Kathleen.alder (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kathleen. What we can do even if the article does get deleted is have an administrator move the article to being a user page instead of being part of the main encyclopedia. This means you can work on it in the expectation of more press coverage appearing. The standard for Wikipedia is significant coverage in the press; we keep this standard to avoid having articles on things that really don't have a place in an encyclopedia. While blogs and Google hits can give an indication of the popularity of something, that doesn't mean it is necessarily noteworthy. Also, an alternative to having a whole article about Ding Day could be writing about it briefly under the London Cycling Campaign article, if it is officially supported by the LCC. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see coverage for this in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - So BBC Radio London, Metro London and the London Cycling Campaign do not count as reliable sources? I understand your filtering process, but in this case I completly disagree with above said. There are enough 'reliable' sources and it for example the BBC Radio London feature can be found on the Ding Day 2008 website. I find this an unnecessary rigiurous process for a clearly defined day with enough hits and listings and mentions...Kathleen.alder (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kathleen, traditionally you get to vote once in an AfD. I know as the creator and PR lead for the event you are keen to keep the article, but there are limits. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – you are right that every editor is allowed only one Keep or Delete opinion.  However, editors are allowed to express their arguments and respond to other editors comments, without limitations, no matter how many times,  on the  AFD.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But Kathleen had started her second bite of the cherry with "Keep". I changed it to "Comment". --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Which is common mistake with New Comers.   I was just pointing out there are no limits to commenting and expressing alternate views.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I find this whole discussion very petty to be honest. I have never posted as a PR company any of my 50 artists on my roster on this until this date and i think it is sad that a topic which is quite obviously relevant to another people online/offline and in the media gets ripped apart like this and then in such a petty way. There are clearly enough 'evidences' of the relevancy (I work in PR so I know what press coverage is and not, dont you think? ) and I wonder what the point is here? We get daily blog mentions, have quite high profile backing with Chris Hoy, Boris Johnson and London Cycling Campaign, so what is the deal? I am amazed by this discussion in general as it is not factual at all. It is about me being PR, being a novice to this, being not relevant for you personally? Shouldnt Wikipedia reflect the general consens and be backed up with relevant sources. Then why am i still having to discuss this topic?Kathleen.alder (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Your comment “…Shouldn’t Wikipedia reflect the general consensus and be backed up with relevant sources”, hits the nail on the head. First Wikipedia, especially the Article For Deletion is consensus based!  In that the closing adminastrator does not look and calculate we had 5 Keep votes and 4 Delete votes, therefore the article is Keep or Delete depending on the vote count.  But rather, looks at the arguments and discussions on whether to Keep or Delete and the stronger consensus of those arguments determines the outcome.  For you second point; “…backed up with relevant sources”.  That’s  the crux of the Delete opinions, they including mine, cannot find any 3rd party – creditable – verifiable – independent and reliable sources concerning the piece.  References to Blogs – PR releases – Facebook – Myspace and other such sites are not considered 3rd party – creditable – verifiable – independent and reliable sources as there is no variability check with these sites.  Hope this helps explain why you piece is getting the reaction it is getting. ShoesssS Talk 16:36, 25 August 2009 (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.