Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighters + Lovers


 * 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 keep. Proto :: ►  23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fighters + Lovers

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable company --Gabi S. 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for and  - multiple sources make it notable. Trebor 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability. There are millions newspapers articles about nothing.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look here, an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ...  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read carefully the second article you've provided, you will see it is rather about Venstresocialisterne than this company. Maybe we would rather merging this to Venstresocialisterne instead of keep or delete.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging would be a possibility. But I think there exists enough information for an article on both, neither article would be very short on its own. Trebor 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is enough information. Tonytypoon 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been able to find just two articles about this "notable" company and  which really is not enough to assert notability.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So tell me, why it fails here Milivoje Bozic. Same situation. You tell me.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We can also discuss what exactly is non-trivial published works. Newspapers article is not a non-trivial.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion of another article isn't an argument for this one (although I will have a look at that AfD). Non-trivial is a measure of the depth of coverage - a newspaper article can easily be non-trivial, so long as there is enough information on the subject in question. In this case, there is. Trebor 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - There is a case for notability, and the BBC article fits the description of notability for non-trivial published worksin WP:N. If more sources can be found, I will consider a stronger position. 206.213.251.31 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another couple of minutes looking gave and . Trebor 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability shown per BBC, Daily Trojan, and Hispanic, three independent, reliable, nontrivial references. These are in addition to the political websites of leftist organizations, which count les for notability. Edison 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The BBC article and the minor references add up to enough points for me under my scoring system. Notability isn't subjective, it just having enough references for verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
 * Every provocative company can probably get a short BBC article. It was a year ago, and nothing since. Guess? and Banana Republic are notable clothing brands; this one is definitely not, despite their gimmick. --Gabi S. 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They want to assert notability using three newspapers articles, no way. They've already made a decision. And Trebor is a member of The Association of Members' Advocates.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And every provocative company that does get a BBC article (and coverage in at least one other place) should have enough verifiable information from those sources to write an article about it. It being a year ago is immaterial - notability doesn't change with time. Who is "they" and why does my membership of AMA have anything to do with this? Do you even know what the AMA does? Yes, we can assert notability on the basis of 3 newspaper articles, because those 3 newspaper articles provide enough verifiable information to write an article. Notability is not significance or importance . Trebor 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, put here everything with an article in the newspapers. Yesterday I read an article about the corner in the neighbourhood, it was in two newspapers independently. Maybe I should start an article about that corner.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 18:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there enough verifiable information to write a decent-sized article about said corner? Are the sources reliable and independent? If yes, then it could have an article. If you want to make an argument for deletion based on non-notability, read through WP:N and show where this article fails it. Trebor 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read through WP:N and WP:CORP and this company fails most notability tests. The few sources that wrote about it might be enough for verifiability, but are not enough to make it notable. No other authors, scholars, or journalists gave it any attention. Notability is generally permanent - this company does not have any frequent coverage, compared to Gap, for example. It is not even listed on independent indices of clothing companies. I don't see any reason to keep it. --Gabi S. 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It passes the Primary Notability Criterion "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself". Notability is generally permanent, as you say - that is the reason that it doesn't need any frequent coverage, it was once notable so it still is. I still think you're looking at notability as somehow associated with importance, which it isn't. The reason to keep is that there is sufficient verifiable information to write an article that doesn't conflict with WP:NOT - which is pretty much what notability is. Trebor 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Being notable as you define it is necessary for being included in Wikipedia, but not sufficient. For relatively-unknown persons and companies, it is enough to include them in a list (in this case, "List of clothing companies" or something similar). For example, all the schools in some area deserve to be listed in "List of schools in X" but not individually, unless a school is exceptional in some way. And I guess that most activities in schools are covered by the local press, so there you have "multiple independent sources", yet they don't qualify for individual articles. Maybe you mixed notability and verifiability. --Gabi S. 08:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this from (and you now seem to be arguing it is notable, which is a turn around)? Name a policy or guideline which having this article would disagree with - simply to assert that for "relatively-unknown persons and companies (an entirely subjective judgement, based on a personal idea of "importance"), it is enough to include them in a list" does not prove anything. Trebor 08:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point Gabi S., I agree with you.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 20:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trebor please read this WikiLawyering policy.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiLawyering Policy?? That's an essay, and not even relevant if you are assuming good faith (which I would hope you are). If you want, read this essay on process as to why you should be able to use existing policies and guidelines to support your case. I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make; deletion arguments, to date, have been:
 * "articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability" - consensus on WP:N disagrees
 * "this one is definitely not [a notable clothing brand], despite their gimmick" - again, WP:N disagrees
 * "this company fails most notability tests" - it passes the primary notability criterion, so not true
 * "I don't see any reason to keep it" - horribly subjective, can't possibly be used as an argument
 * "Being notable as you define it is necessary for being included in Wikipedia, but not sufficient" - a reversal in argument (now you say it is notable) for a start, and I question what is sufficient for inclusion
 * Added to that have been numerous irrelevant comments about local events in your newspaper and other AfDs. Argue in this case, for this article, not by making pointless comparisons. If you can give me a convincing reason for deletion (which isn't subjective), then I'll change my views. Trebor 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Trebor. First of all, I didn't say it is now notable. I said that if you use your suggested definition of notability, you end up listing on Wikipedia every company, every school, every TV show, every album and every song on Earth, as well as most non-anonymous people. And now I'll answer your question about subjectivity. You must use some judgment when deciding what articles should exist in an encyclopedia and which should be left out or minimized, e.g. by including them in lists. I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but still some subjective criterions should be applied. The policies that you mentioned are usually used the other way. For example, a person or company that was not mentioned in multiple independent sources is clearly non-notable, and thus it's a clear-cut delete decision. But even if a person or company was mentioned in multiple independent sources, it may still be non-notable and thus deleted, because, yes, from a subjective point of view it makes sense. This is the reason for the AfD process. If there is a "technical" reason for deletion ("clear-cut"), then the decision is obvious. Otherwise, it is open for debate, and in this specific case, I think it should be deleted. --Gabi S. 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no - deletion should not be subjective. That's what causes systemic bias, that's what makes it dependent on what people feel and on which people decide to vote. There is no subjectivity anywhere in the policies or deletion guidelines (to the best of my knowledge). AfD is a place to ask for and be shown sources, to argue the reliability of sources, to discuss whether an article belongs in an encyclopaedia (whether it violates WP:NOT), etc. You say I'm using my "suggested definition of notability", but it is the consensual one on WP:NOTE - it should be used. Subjectivity undermines the whole deletion process. Trebor 12:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion must be little subjective. You are not a machine, just think about this company and think why it is notable and why it is in encyclopedia - because there were three articles in the newspapers. That's pretty bad reason.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That directly contradicts this though - notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. Trebor 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you think that three newspapers articles about company assert notability.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 20:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your argument? You've changed and changed and changed, and every time I ask for an explanation you seem to go off on a tangent into a different point. If I may, can I ask a few straight questions and get a few straight answers? Do you think deletion should be a subjective decision? Do you think this article qualifies as notable using the consensual definition at WP:N? Do you think notability (as defined by that guideline) is sufficient for an article and, if not, what else must there be? Trebor 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you my argument. It's simple. You need notability plus common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not so common in Wikipedia. For example, the other non-notable article that I nominated for deletion was kept. --Gabi S. 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This suggests you have no argument. Common sense is obviously subjective (as we don't agree here), so cannot be used as a deletion criterion. And aside from that, you seem to have nothing. Trebor 08:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What you say is not accurate. The deletion criterion was clearly stated in the first place, and it is non-notability. The handful of independent sources that mention this company are not "multiple" as the notability criterion suggests. Using also common sense for deletion decisions doesn't hurt. --Gabi S. 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And what more, these articles are more about the political party members who estabilished that company. Not about company itself. We can't take it as a multiple non-trivial works about subject, simply cannot.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:20, 27 December 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.