Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeconcerts

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. No convincing policy-based arguments to keep the article. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safeconcerts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has referenciness but the references turn out to be casual namechecks, not one of them is actually about the subject of this article and in virtually every case the only reason safeconcerts is mentioned at all is because they are quoting (usually very briefly) Derren Nugent. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Wouldn't they be quoting Nugent because he's representing Safeconcerts?~~ Anyway, the BBC News article, aside from spotlighting Nugent's comment in a speech bubble (and noting he's representing Safeconcerts), specifically endorses Safeconcerts in a paragraph within the 'Avoiding scam websites' section. The Daily Mail, while tabloid, is a popular middle market. The first article calls Safeconcerts "an online directory of reputable ticket merchants", ~~and the second article quotes Nugent (again noting the site he's from); neither are sensational tabloid stories~~. That the BBC and Daily Mail would each cover Safeconcerts more than once speaks to its enduring notability. The NHS endorses the site's 'Festival survival guide' as a "useful link" within a page entitled "Festival health", which seems fairly important. ~~Nugent (again of Safeconcerts) being quoted about a tour by a star like Madonna in a paper like The Scotsman also seems noteworthy~~. The other smaller papers are not merely mentioning Nugent, they're promoting the site Safeconcerts (one of the Echo cites quotes Nugent, the other two newspaper articles don't even mention him). Safeconcerts might not be the sole subject of the cites given, but per WP:N, it "need not be the main topic of the source material". For what it's worth, Safeconcerts was already used as a cite in 24 Wikipedia articles. Culeygirl (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The official Leeds Festival site[1] and another BBC article[2] have covered Safeconcerts, and I'm sure we can agree these are not trivial mentions. Billboard magazine also mentions it here: [3]. Mentions in The Guardian[4] and the Daily Record[5] are more brief, ~~although The Guardian actually linking Safeconcerts within an article amounts to more than a passing mention, it's an endorsement~~.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Culeygirl (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "covered", you mean "namechecked". That is not coverage. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Even myriad passing mentions of the subject related to its operators aren't enough to substantiate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Those provided above are, almost without exception, the barest of passing mentions. "so-and-so from x" or "x spokesperson, so-and-so" is not in anyway "significant coverage". Those sources include nothing we could possible use to verify content in an article. Simply linking to a site is not an "endorsement" and to suggest as much is simply dishonest, especially given several of those news sites include specific disclaimers disavowing responsibility for the content of external sites like the subject. That's not much of an endorsement as far as I'm concerned. Again, we need significant coverage not just passing mentions. Stalwart111 03:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To say that the 11/11/10 BBC News link and the Leeds Fest link are only fleeting mentions is a bald-faced lie and reflective of the "let's-delete-everything" culture around here. Also genuine endorsements from the Mail, National Health and a couple other UK papers. 82.132.236.8 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.132.236.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mail only namechecks the organization while actually talking generally about festival safety and National Health only provides a link to their website. The other sources seem to be just mentions also in the context of discussing other things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Latitude Festival also promotes the site, so i have added it to the article and have removed the citations that are basically a brief quote from the founder (Guardian, Scotsman etc). When the Latititude, Leeds and BBC news citations are considered (as well genuine if more brief endorsements from other websites), the subject seems to meet notability. I dont know how the BBC citation can be dismissed when safeconcerts is mentioned several times and a screenshot of the website is even presented - Can't touch the demon (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could provide a policy-based explanation of how the subject might "meet notability"? See WP:N, WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS for examples. This ongoing suggestion that a passing mention in a newspaper constitutes an "endorsement" from said newspaper is nonsense. Stalwart111 05:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the papers arent brilliant citations, Stalwart (i removed three), but given the nature of the language used i would say the remaining ones are endorsements. Its not just about papers anymore though. Two major festivals have most definitely endorsed safeconcerts on their respective websites. The BBC article is certainly not just some throwaway mention as i said, the BBC are not only telling people to use the site, but they mention it several times in the article and present a screenshot of the page. safeconcerts is not the sole focus of any of the citations but that need not be the case. In my opinion it is notable per the notability essay - Can't touch the demon (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. You can't just take a passing mention in an article that is neutral or not-negative and call it "an endorsement". Being endorsed (though, again, a link to the subject site is not an "endorsement" either) by business partners like the concerts that safeconcerts is trying to keep safe, would likely not be considered an independent reliable source either. Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hung up on these "passing mentions", which i agree the article was mostly built on initially. Things have improved, with more substantial support. The BBC and MailOnline citations are even presenting screenshots of the safeconcerts website - Can't touch the demon (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is met per multiple reliable sources touching it. The three sources stressed by the above user assert notability, while the others provide some bolstering. 195.188.214.245 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out those reliable sources? Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a couple of new citations in which safeconcerts in the focus. One of these is from the National Fraud Authority's fraud reporting division. Also added a much better MailOnline article where safeconcerts is named as one of the 8 best music fest websites, and given considerable attention including a screenshot. I would now ardently support a keep - Can't touch the demon (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added a re-printed press release and a site that specifically doesn't endorse the site in question and actually disavows itself of any involvement: "Please note: Action Fraud is not responsible for the content on external websites". Significant coverage of the subject by the subject is not independent enough for the purposes of WP:RS. Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that the ILMC page was a press release (added in error, and now removed). I also concede that Action Fraud did not endorse safeconcerts, but a standard disclaimer on a website does not mean that safeconcerts was not the subject of the piece, so it is a valid source. You seem to have skipped over the MailOnline piece, which named safeconcerts as one of the "best websites" for music festivals, published a screenshot of the site, and gave a substantial paragraph about it - Can't touch the demon (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MailOnline article lists the subject as one of a large number of concert-related websites "worth a look". Given the author's other contributions (most of which are from his "The best websites for..." column) I think it's a stretch to consider a mention in one of those list as "significant coverage". Let's not describe a few lines and a disclaimer on the website of an organisation in the same business as the subject "a piece" like its some form of detailed editorial. It's not. Again, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It may be that this was created WP:TOOSOON and simply isn't ready yet. But given the sources provided so far, it seems awfully like a group of people trying to shoe-horn their product into Wikipedia to promote it. The straw-clutching isn't helping. Stalwart111 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If i am "straw-clutching" then what are you? You are suggesting that an editorially independent website has business links to festivals, when the festival pages actually say it doesnt. You are skipping over citations which clearly assert the notability of the subject, and then trying to delve into the history of an author to discredit him. I provide an article where safeconcerts is the subject, which you dismiss as not being an endorsement (although it is still coverage, so i change the wording on the safeconcerts article), then bang on about it not being a "detailed editorial" You also mention that action fraud is in the "same business" as the editorially independent safconcerts, which again reads like dodgy engineering/rigging from yourself. The subject has reliable sources, moreso than a ton of articles on wikipedia - Can't touch the demon (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I have zero interest in this subject, beyond whether or not in complies with Wikipedia guidelines. No vested interest whatsoever; couldn't care less if it stays or goes but I'm of the opinion (which is what this forum is designed to elicit) that this doesn't yet meet our inclusion guidelines and so should be deleted. You are free to disagree but decisions here and made on the basis of weight-of-argument. Policy-based arguments are always going to be more highly valued by a closing administrator and I'm simply trying to encourage you to make such an argument (away from non-policy arguments like the one that equates a passing mention in a newspaper with "endorsement"). None of these are "new" arguments which is why we have guidelines like WP:CORPDEPTH for subjects like this. The note to that guideline says specifically - "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all", which is contrary to what you're suggesting should be the case. Want to change policy? Go to WP:VPP and obtain a new WP:CONSENSUS. Until then, arguments like that aren't likely to be afforded a lot of weight. Stalwart111 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the notability essay when i was first urged to and think safeconcerts is notable, so my comments are policy based. I wont be spouting off an array of essay abbreviations because i dont know them. What i do know is that there are citations from MailOnline and other worthwhile sources, and per WP:N, notability is asserted. As for your reference to the exclusion of "best of" lists per WP:CORPDEPTH, the new MailOnline one doesnt simply include safeconcerts in some faceless list, it writes about the website and includes a screenshot of it. Citations like the ones i removed from the Guardian and Scotsman were very much passing mentions and soundbites from the founder. The article was crumbly at first but citations have been found to confirm its notability. However i seriously doubt there are any books published about safeconcerts, or any lengthy chronicles of its history in top newspapers, and i dont see how such attention could be expected of a watchdog - its not an article about a celebrity, musical recording etc., something that demands to be written about at length over the years - Can't touch the demon (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's another BBC News article in which the BBC have reprinted consumer complaints posted on Safeconcerts. I've added it. Culeygirl (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions of a subject don't count. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they dont, and if the citations were only "passing mentions", your vote would count for something. I hope the closing admin explores the article before paying attention to these eager-to-delete comments and acknowledges that "delete" votes were cast before notability-affirming citations were found. WP:N gives an example of a trivial mention in the form of: "In high school, he [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." Not sure how MailOnline writing a paragraph about safeconcerts and screenshotting it, and BBC News screenshotting it and actually copying text from the site are "passing mentions". Safeconcerts was the subject of an Action Fraud article. Festival Republic placed a paragraph on both the Leeds and Latitude Festival pages telling people to use the site. This "passing mentions" stuff is absurd, and in my subjective opinion i am finally tending toward a belief in the wikipedia "boys club" which i previously refused to believe existed - Can't touch the demon (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd probably give the benefit of the doubt to the borderline Mail reference (although the text there feels like an ad placement as much as anything), but the BBC article isn't independent, as an employee of the company was used as a source for the article. Not quite. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 6 May 2014 (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.