Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headlinersuk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. WP:HEY seems to apply. As for merging: I would call that supported by the debate but not the outright consensus, and no one seems to object. Mangojuicetalk 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN organisation. All sources self-published Mayalld (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain yourself - what is a NN organisation? Why does an entry exist for Children's Express, our former name, but you won't allow one for our current name? Ollybenson (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NN = not notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC seems an adequate source. The article should perhaps be renamed Headliners which seems to be the proper name of the organisation. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The BBC is an excellent source, however non-trivial coverage is required, and whilst the article claims coverage, it provides no evidence of that coverage, and I have been unable to find any myself. Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a link thru to the work Headliners did with BBC Northern Ireland in the recent work section Ollybenson (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The BBC is an excellent source, however non-trivial coverage is required, and whilst the article claims coverage, it provides no evidence of that coverage, and I have been unable to find any myself. Mayalld (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that an article for Children's Express is neither here nor there (WP:WAX), in any case, the Chilren's Express article refers to the now-defunct US organisation. While it is a worthy organisation and has had some coverage I do not believe it is significant coverage as per WP:N. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with regret. Links appear to be statements that the named media organisations support this charity, rather than coverage of it. Not notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I follow. There are links to coverage on BBC News 24, BBC Northern Ireland, Sky and I can add more links to our work appearing in other publications and on ITV etc. I don't understand what you guys are looking for. Ollybenson (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The links are like public service announcements, not hard news. Sounds like you have a conflict of interest too! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the fact that a Headliners reporter went to Kenya, made a report about young people with HIV/AIDS that was shown on BBC News 24 is classed as a "public service annoucement" by Wikipedia. I've never hidden the fact that I am employed by Headliners; but I don't think that puts me in conflict of interest. All I was trying to do was create an entry based on our existing name rather than a former name. Ollybenson (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you imagine that (as an employee of this organisation) you don't have a WP:COI, just what do you think does constitute a conflict of interest? Mayalld (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to write a factual entry in line with what I assume Wikipedia requires; without promoting the organisation I work for unfairly. To me, and according to the reference you cite a conflict of interest occurs when I am doing something other than trying to further the aims of Wikipedia. I've got no problem with disclosing that I work for Headliners, and if Wikipedia wants me to declare that information then that's fine. But then I've edited a lot of wikipedia entries on subjects that I have knowledge or an interest in; primarily because I either work or volunteer or have involvement with them. Does that mean there is conflict of interest each time? Ollybenson (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you ask, it presents the possibility of a CoI, by my reading of the policy. I tried to look up your other edits, but under this username there are none that I can see. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment possibility of a CoI is not the same as having a CoI which was what was initially suggested. I've never had to log in to make changes on Wikipedia before, which is why I only registered today. Ollybenson (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you ask, it presents the possibility of a CoI, by my reading of the policy. I tried to look up your other edits, but under this username there are none that I can see. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to write a factual entry in line with what I assume Wikipedia requires; without promoting the organisation I work for unfairly. To me, and according to the reference you cite a conflict of interest occurs when I am doing something other than trying to further the aims of Wikipedia. I've got no problem with disclosing that I work for Headliners, and if Wikipedia wants me to declare that information then that's fine. But then I've edited a lot of wikipedia entries on subjects that I have knowledge or an interest in; primarily because I either work or volunteer or have involvement with them. Does that mean there is conflict of interest each time? Ollybenson (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you imagine that (as an employee of this organisation) you don't have a WP:COI, just what do you think does constitute a conflict of interest? Mayalld (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the fact that a Headliners reporter went to Kenya, made a report about young people with HIV/AIDS that was shown on BBC News 24 is classed as a "public service annoucement" by Wikipedia. I've never hidden the fact that I am employed by Headliners; but I don't think that puts me in conflict of interest. All I was trying to do was create an entry based on our existing name rather than a former name. Ollybenson (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The links are like public service announcements, not hard news. Sounds like you have a conflict of interest too! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I follow. There are links to coverage on BBC News 24, BBC Northern Ireland, Sky and I can add more links to our work appearing in other publications and on ITV etc. I don't understand what you guys are looking for. Ollybenson (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, at least for now. It's somewhat telling that the first 2 links on Google for Headliners UK are a dance troupe and an indie band. Comments by Ollybenson above ("...our current name..." etc.), suggest a WP:COI problem here as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do a search for Headliners. The reason it is listed as HeadlinersUK is because Headliners already existed; I don't understand how to change the name to Headliners. Ollybenson (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous Headliners article doesn't seem to merit its place - it's just a redirect to an ad for a chain of clubs. The name should either be a disambiguation page or freed up for this article. Perhaps we can sort this out together Colonel Warden (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Headliners Entertainment Group have been deleted pr CSD A7. Taemyr (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous Headliners article doesn't seem to merit its place - it's just a redirect to an ad for a chain of clubs. The name should either be a disambiguation page or freed up for this article. Perhaps we can sort this out together Colonel Warden (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do a search for Headliners. The reason it is listed as HeadlinersUK is because Headliners already existed; I don't understand how to change the name to Headliners. Ollybenson (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Possible merge to or from Children's Express - I have added a couple of references to the article but it needs a lot of work. I will flag it for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about moving to Headliners UK, and making it a redirect to Children's Express which mentions the UK org'n and its name change? That then allows for an expanded, properly sourced, article at a later date. This seems like a well-intended situation which hasn't yet met the notability criterion in a demonstrable way. That's the only reason we're having this discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability. This appears to be yet another questionable drive-by nomination, created within two minutes of the article's creation, hardly sufficient to meet the most perfunctory interpretation of a nominator's obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I also agree that the article's title does not do justice to the organization and should be renamed to avoid possible misinterpretations. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the sources don't establish notability. They are little different from ads. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alansohn accuses me of drive-by nomination, whilst indulging in drive-by personal attacks in every AfD I submit. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this an ad? [1] (published by the BBC today) Ollybenson (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's an article about knife and gun violence. There is a difference between an article about Headliners and an article by Headliners. A example demonstrating notability would be an independent coverage of [2] Taemyr (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the sources don't establish notability. They are little different from ads. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Children's Express And redirect Headliners there. There is simply not enough content here that not merging is meaningfull. Merging with childrens express would also help give readers context. As and when there is more content to add the page can be spun out again.Taemyr (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Children's Express pet Taemyr's argument. At the very least, move this over to Headliners. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge Children's Express, this is the current name.--Him and a dog 16:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but merging would be OK. Well-sourced: BBC, The Guardian, etc. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.