Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Secret Shows


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Secret Shows

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I was going to mark this as a speedy, but then I reconsidered and instead added a tag. The author removed the tag and rewrote the article so that it reads more like an advertisement, and left a note on the talk page telling people not to "vandalize" the article. While this could be real, it looks suspicious. JuJube 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Let me start by saying this is not an advertisement i just like the idea of secret shows and i think it should have a wiki. Secondly as some of this may be subjective, which can be changed, it is all from the MySpace Secret Shows page. Lastly why would u delete a perfectly good article just because it needs some touching up. After all the more articles the better and i assure you all of this has sources even the qoute: "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is from the official page. P.S. myspace secret shows IS real. o ya and sry for deleting the notice i was just mad u (or someone else deleted the page b4 it was even finished. Martini833 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless third party references can be produced to establish the notability of it. The idea that "it is notable for bringing great bands to small towns" is subjective in more ways than one, and isn't in line with any of our notability criteria. Leebo T / C  01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to suggest notability. Saying they're notable for bringing bands to small towns is more like an opinion that some facet of notability that is actually attributable/verifiable.  Non-notable. janejellyroll 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's definately notable for more reasons. It has famous bands. Over 38 shows and has been running smoothly for more than a year. It is definately as notable as any event in the music scene and saying that it's not because they are "secret" is just like saying things that haven't come out yet and are not announced shouldnt be on wikipedia.. Martini833 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentJust because a band is notable doesn't mean that everything they participate in is notable. And yes . . . if something hasn't come out yet and is not announced and there is no information about notability, it should not be on Wikipedia.  janejellyroll 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK if you can give me three logical reason why this is NOT notable instead of trying to counter everything I say then I will admit it is not notable and you can take over. And by the way if i dont think it's logical than sorry no way is this article being deleted without a "notable" (hahaha used ur word) reason. Anyway i worked so hard on it and it is my first full fledged aricle so could u find out the facts (or just read the article cus the facts are all there) youll see that this is no advertisement and it is all *(dare i say) notably correct. BTW this was really hard to do with the wikipedia code i wasnt familiar with so...... STOP ruining a perfectly good article. And again the more articles the better (as long as they have facts which you can cjeck out here www.myspace.com/secretshows.Martini833 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI realize it can be a bit difficult to get used to Wikipedia guidelines and I'm sorry if you feel as if people are giving you a hard time. However, WP:N provides some really good information about how to determine whether things are notable and it says "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable."  Can you find any sources, other than those affiliated with myspace.com, that identify this group of shows as notable?  Nobody doubts that this is a real group of shows.  However, the standard for Wikipedia is not truth, but attribution and notability.  janejellyroll 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not taking my above comment angrily. But anyways other sources can be found. But i couldnt just do that right now. I'll do that in some time. But why would you want to delete it. Check the sources. And if you could find others that find it notable that would be nice. Thank you again for not taking this aggresively. Martini833 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The key here is to show that reliable, third party sources have featured this group of shows in their publications. If no one has written about it, then it probably fails WP:N. About it being your first article, please know that we're not trying to make this personal; it's a matter of meeting the standards for inclusion. Leebo T / C  02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Waiting for sources do not delete until proven to be unnotable etc. Martini833 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to MySpace or Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found, and the article is good. The article needs some re-writing, but nothing really more than that and getting some sources. And also, everyone, please make sure if you want to comment on this subject, to put comment in bold letters where you would normally put keep or delete. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete' No sources shown outside it self (WP:RS) Not verifiable outside of itself WP:V. Burden in on author to show with external sources how it is notable. If the author needs time to present sources please give him that and I will remove my vote as not enough time has really been given. However if he is arguing that in its current state it is somehow self-notable, then it must be deleted because it's not.--Dacium 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if this was not notable then why would i look it up and realize no one had written it and be kind enough to do a well written (non advertising) esssay on it. And according to chizzy it's notable with 3rd parties and well written so its not my opinion. Martini833 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment chizzy? Anyway... Chickyfuzz didn't really say that. What it means is if there are no third party sources, it should be merged into MySpace. Also, we don't "hold off" on the process of discussion for you to add more. If you do add more, it would be taken into consideration, but we're not going to wait. Leebo T / C  02:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say I have a life and I cant just stay on the computer protecting this article. Anyway if you google myspace secret shows you"ll find non-myspace sources about the shows. I have checked and to my surprise (not really) they were indeed there. Martini833 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. i hope you saw this< Keep. Sources on MySpace Secret Shows can be found,>Martini833 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Block quote
 * Comment Well, the discussion lasts for 5 days. Could you possibly add the references some time in the next 5 days? I have a life too, but 5 days is a long time. Leebo T / C  02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound rude but, why don't you just google it and find them for yourself i dont have time I'm about to leave the computer but would like to know what is going on in the discussions page.Martini833 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment From Verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Leebo T / C  03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this. From Wikipedia w/e "WHY DON'T YOU" you're the one that cares... and i think you know this by now MySpace Secret Shows is real and the article is fine. You just don't have anything else to do but delete things because it probably makes you feel good. How about u delete your ****ing profile and leave a good article (in this case myspace secret shows) alone. GAH you got me to tht level were im p***ed off. Thnk you
 * Reply Okay... I'll reiterate that a deletion discussion is not personal. I ask the same thing of all articles that get discussed. It's certainly not my intention to antagonize you. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is not personal but ur this close to making it! anyway wy dont you delete an article like that article on georgian martial arts.Martini833 03:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Leebo is actually trying to help you by letting you know what you can do (add sources) in the next five days to reduce the chances of this article being deleted. I know that it can feel a bit overwhelming to be in the middle of this right after creating your first article, but try to keep a cool head.  As for the other article you mentioned . . . the fact that other articles with similiar faults exists doesn't give any article a free pass.  We judge each article individually.  You have the next five days to improve the article.  I've seen situations before where people have changed their opinions on an article after amendments were made to it.  If you feel this strongly, why not channel your energy into improvements rather than tussling with other editors here? janejellyroll 03:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If it's secret, then there's no way for us Muggles to find out about it, right? So it should fail WP:ATT, right?  And anyway the whole article reads like an ad, right? YechielMan 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "They are, as the name suggests, secret" Let's delete this and help them stay secret. Real secret. Croxley 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and move important details into MySpace. ^Yes, secret it shall be. Alex43223T 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and mention anything notable on the main Myspace page in a non-advertising way (in short, ^"ditto"). *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless totally rewritten - violates WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT and WP:WEB in its current state. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or condense into a sentence and merge into MySpace's main article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as pretty blatant violation of WP:SPAM and certainly fails WP:ATT. RGTraynor 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Janejellyroll and YechielMan. Acalamari 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep first of all they are not secret. Did you read the article, they can be found out by doing the folowing... anyways wy does everyone think this is spam. I do not work at myspace or am affiliated with it in any way. I just wrote an article about it and you guys are wanting to delete it because you think im advertising (which i cant do for a job since im not at the legal working age for an advertisement agency. You guys are just haters (who didnt actually seem to read the article) who want to feel good about themselves by deleting perfectly good material. Martini833 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please remember to assume good faith. Everyone wants to improve the encyclopedia, so please avoid making accusations of ill intentions. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the numerous policy/guideline violations listed above. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the notability. Yes, MySpace is notable, and yes the bands are notable.  But working on that basis we'd have hundreds of articles along the lines of "ClearChannel presents Radiohead US tour 2007" or whatever.  It might be worth a sentence in the main MySpace article, but I doubt it.  Eliminator JR   Talk  21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as it can be rewritten to not sound like an ad. If one user's causing trouble, I don't see why usual anti-vandal channels can't take care of that problem. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Leebo and janejellyroll. Non-notable outside a passing mention in MySpace. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, though "notability" isn't really the issue here...let's start with "verifiability" and then move on to notability. No independent sources at all, and "put this on your myspace page to prove it" doesn't count.  Truly "secret" things don't have articles for a reason: they're secret, and therefore can't be verified.  --UsaSatsui 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP If you havnt noticed they are not that secret. Before u comment read the actual article. and before you ask someone to check their facts wy dont u check the article first (cus the facts are all there)Martini833 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC) o ya and wy dont u just rewrite it if its such a big problem that it sounds much like an ad (which it isnt)Martini833 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the article. First off, your argument that it's not "secret" when "secret" is in the title isn't convincing.  It also doesn't matter, there's plenty of articles on secret things that aren't really secret.  The issue is, there's no independent press whatsoever on this.  Supposed I put these words on my page, I found out about a show, and came back with "Oh, okay, these are real, keep them".  That still wouldn't be enough, since to pass WP:ATT, you need independent, third-party sources.  A newspaper article, a web post from a reliable site, a peer-reviewed journal, what have you.  Something beyond a forum anyone can post to.  The issue here is not whether it's true or not.  The issue is whether it can be verified independently.  As the article stands, it can't.  --UsaSatsui 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Martini833's "keep" !vote is struck above as he has already said keep once in this discussion. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the image on the page appears to breach copyright. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Leebo you really, Really , REALLY , REALLY need to get a life. Do you have any other activities in your life because to me you're on 24/7. Basically I've been on once a day at a specific time and you've been online (probably ticking people off) all day (and night long. So again GET A LIFE and get a job and MOVE OUT OF YOUR MOM'S BASEMENT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).
 * This is your only warning, martini - cease with the personal attacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just block him, he's here to spam his silly show and disrupt other people's articles, not make an encyclopedia. JuJube 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do i have to say I am not an advertiser or a spammerMartini833 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I know that this is the internet and I can't PROVE it but ill let u know im under the age of 14 and cant even get a job at Publix much lesss an ad company. anyway i do not spam i just made my first article on one of my interests so if u think my above comments were rude I'm sorry but feel free to reformat or rewrite or rephrase the article so it sounds like an encyclopedic entry. also dont delete it because it is well written and let me tell you ive seen much worse that hasnt been dleted example: Rancho Verde High School of course u wouldnt delete that because it is yours. and about the references feel free to add them yourself because the rest of the work was mine and it is ALL true and found on their webpage. anyway back to the advertisement/spam issue ive spoken to an admin about this to give me a way to straighten ths out... Martini833 22:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. im not a newbie this is just my first full fledge article ive done a lot of productive editing and the format is that of the Simpsons Comics and you are free to change it if u have a good reasonMartini833 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have engaged in disruptive behavior.  Why should we believe that you're not here to spam? JuJube 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop it, both of you. This discussion is about the appropriateness of this article, not a place to discuss/defend Martini833's overall activities. Take it to your user talk pages, please. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

could someone please rewrite this to sound less like an ad. Martini833 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) After minor rephrasing for this page not to look like an ad this page should be updated by taking off the deletion notice because I have found an article that confirms its notability: "MySpace.com announced today it will commemorate the first birthday of the community's most popular franchise, Secret Shows presented by Chili's, by launching an alliance with Best Buy. Under the deal, MySpace Secret Show artists will receive promotion in more than 550 Best Buy stores nationwide." -ClearStation. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on this or edit this or see the full article please do. Article: http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=7923196 o ya and http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_318.html Martini833 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) the first one is a press release the other is an article like you ppl asked for from a notable source so i REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY think the deletion should be (hahah) deletedMartini833 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN series of promotions of usually 3rd tier or worse entertainers. Where individual shows are notable they are covered elsewhere and MySpace has it's own article already. This is about promoting MySpace which should be covered at MySpace.Garrie 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The second of those two references isn't particularly useful, since it just says "there'll be a show in Japan" or something along those lins. That's not a non-trivial mention. The first one, on the other hand, sounds promising. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're both nothing more than press releases. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not in great health this morning, so my critical faculties weren't quite on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * um, do you see those two large words at the top of the page? -ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Martini, whether the notability is asserted or not (which I'm not sure it has been), the deletion discussion remains open for 5 days. You can't make it go away. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment  yes the first one is written about the us ones and is by clearchannel which is nOT affiliated with myspae secret shows the first one is not a press release it's an article BY clear channelMartini833 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) no the description of myspace is by myspace not the actual article Martini833 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) well wat more do you want to keep this article there seems to be more and more that you want evrerytime i add something.Martini833 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Press releases don't entirely convince me of the notability of "MySpace Secret Shows", since they're by definition written by the company. Can you find an article writing about them? JuJube 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except at the bottom it says "SOURCE: MySpace.com", killing its neutrality. JuJube 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I write an article and say "Source: MySpace.com" at the end of the article, it means that the entire article is sourced from MySpace.com. Not just some bits of it. If I want to write an article citing MySpace's own description of itself, I'd write something like "MySpace describes itself as 'blablabla'." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Martin, I used to write press releases, and trust me, this is one. (a) It is posted to a discussion board, it is not a news article by an independent news agency. (b) there is no by-line or author other than "business wire" which is a wire service (as is Comtex who's logo appears in the corner. (c) it has the boiler plate "About MySpace" section at the end, common to all press releases. (d) it has contact information at the end for people at MySpace. These are all common elements of press releases, and not of news articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof remains unchanged. Independent and non-trivial sources are required. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - maybe put a one- or two-sentence mention of it in the MySpace article. This is not a vendetta against a new article writer, Martini, it is an effort to maintain the notability standards. -- Orange Mike 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

no offense orangemike but u are sooooooooooooooo late65.11.27.42 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion is open for 5 days, Mr. 65.11.27.42. During that time any and all are welcome to contribute. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  19:51, 30 March 2007 (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.