Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unleashed (events)

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. The voters do not agree on whether there is sufficient coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG, but those who think it does not clearly prevail. The article can be restored on request to user space or to draft space.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unleashed (events)

Unleashed (events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Don't see anything in the references that establish notability. Imo this is a promotional article, although I have stripped out the more egregious bubbles o'guff. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment User:TheLongToneThank you for your reviewing/stripping of the article, I would like to edit this article to make it more befitting of the available wiki guidelines. Notability in references is hard to come by as an event organisation, while speaking about it in text (international visitors, content of shows/stage design/concept, etc) easily creates this promotional tone. If I compare this article to other large (fetish) club events, even ones that are just active in one country, I feel that we have supplied the correct information (now improved by your stripping) and amount of references via notable performers and designers. Examples: German fetish ball, Wasteland, etcetera. Would a table with an overview of previous events be of additional value in this? I will research further options, suggestions are very welcome as I am not experienced in dealing with this :) Nichica (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have improved the question of notability by adding a paragraph "media", referencing to the different ways that Unleashed has been featured/noted. I have also added a link to Unleashed's facebook page, hoping that the >15k of likes demonstrate the wide-spread interest of people for this event. In case this is "not done", please let me know and I will remove this link. Nichica (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment User:Nichica, Facebook likes are not WP:RELIABLE. Any social media account does not count as a decent source. Please remove this source from the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment User:ThePlatypusofDoom Thank you for your feedback; done. Nichica (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• DeleteDraftDelete (changed vote (again), see comment below) - Not because of notability, but conflict of interest. User:Nichica, you're welcome on Wikipedia, but if you work for Unleashed or High Gloss Productions, you must disclose that information. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. If you create an article without disclosing that you work for the company, it's not only against Wikipedia rules, but against European law on covert advertising - even if you write in a non-promotional way.

If you do disclose, it is still not be allowed to write an article about the company you work for! You can only participate in discussions and make suggestions. So, unfortunately, this article must be deleted. Anything that might be seen as commercial advertising - even if it's true - is forbidden on Wikipedia. The article would need to be written by other independent Wikipedia editors, based on "secondary sources". That means references and citations from published, reliable media and press sources. There are processes whereby you could help with that. The Plain and simple conflict of interest guide offers some advice.

To establish notability, it's less important that the secondary source itself is notable, than that it's reliable. But the source must also say that there is something unique or notable about the event! For example, if the national newspaper De Volkskrant reports that Unleashed is a big party that happens on May 21 at The Box, it is not evidence of notability. But if the local Haarlems Dagblad writes that Unleashed is one of the top events of its kind in Europe, it may be. The German Fetish Ball article says that it's "the largest fetish weekend in Germany", according to the small but well-established Miami New Times newspaper. Without those types of references, there is no chance an article can be created. It doesn't help if you write in your own words about how amazing Unleashed is, because you are a primary source. In fact, that may hurt the chances, since it will be seen as self-promotion, which is not allowed.

The media sources you've provided are weak. The V Magazine article is more of a press release, written by High Gloss Productions, so it is not a secondary source. HGP is also a major advertiser on the Fetishistas site. So, neither are reliable sources, especially for notability. The report on BNN is helpful, but still probably not enough. If your main goal is to promote your event, you would do better to spend your time on media PR, than trying to make a Wikipedia article. But if you want to help educate people and contribute to Wikipedia, it would be appreciated! For example, you could improve the German Fetish Ball and related articles, as long as you don't write about Unleashed. That would help you and your company get a good reputation on Wikipedia, and might make other people more likely to help you in the future. Good luck! --IamNotU (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I see that, after TheLongTone cleaned up the article a bit, Nichica reinserted puffery and unsubstantiated claims. I've taken the axe to the article to remove some of the worst of it, in order to try to better see if the article achieves notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow up. OK, I've started to investigate. I have a feeling the article subject may actually be notable, but there's still so much junk in the article that it's hard to find the good stuff. Most of the references are useless in demonstrating notability, for at least one of the following reasons:
    • not independent (e.g., the production company or the event venue)
    • Unleashed isn't mentioned, or is mentioned in just a few words (e.g., the fire girls and many others)
    • site that is not reliable (Facebook being the most common example)

Indeed, many of these links have nothing at all to say about Unleashed, and it is inappropriate to even include them, as they're really just Spam links. This inculdes most, if not all, of the links in the Artists & Fashion section.

• The "Media" section of the article has some references that mention Unleashed:

• Good--An article in Fetishishtas includes in-depth coverage.
• Bad--the reference to a party review in V Magazine appears to be the equivalent of a press release masquerading as an interview, with wording like "Our parties are fetish fantasy events..."
• Unknown--some links don't work at all, such as this one.
• Possible copyright violation--I was under the impression that it was inappropriate to refer to most Youtube or Vimeo videos, since they prove nothing unless they are from a userid that is verified by Youtube, and may also be a copyright violation. Thus, this vimeo link probably can't be used. However, perhaps a valid version can be found somewhere.

--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Keep [changed vote per indented comment following this paragraph]. I've spent a little more time, and haven't found anything more that would support notability. To build upon what others have said, I'm also concerned that the article's creator, and virtual sole editor, is a new, single purpose account. Note that what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest must be declared. If someone, particularly someone who speaks Dutch, wants to userfy it, I wouldn't object. Clean up the article, remove 90% of the Spam-like links, find one or two more sources that really cover the event, and it could pass. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the improvements made by Nichica. I do not know Dutch, and Google translate isn't cooperating in translating some of the links (much less a video). However, I've puzzled out a few words, and I think the article has met the bar for notability. If any Dutch speakers want to correct me, feel free! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you all for your extensive responses, this is indeed the first page I am creating and can easily say I have learned a lot in a very brief amount of time.

I must note here that I am not working for Unleashed or High Gloss Productions - I'm a PhD student. It is, however, true that I am acquainted with the organizers as I have been attending their events for years now, along with various other (large) fetish events within and outside of the Netherlands and Germany. I have written this piece myself by using online sources and media, and from a fan's perspective. These two facts may indeed have colored the tone of the initial post. In my opinion, the event is definitely considered notable, especially with regard to the progress it’s made towards opening up these kinds of “taboo” events to a broader public, so I’m happy with the support and feedback that I’ve received from Wikipedia users in order to remove "promotional clutter".

Larry/Traveling_man, it was not my intention to re-insert puffery, I apologize if this came across as such. Really - I just figured I would spend some of my spare time now i'm in-between jobs to do something good for the scene, teaching myself how to use the wikipedia platform, etc. I have been (and have donated to) wikipedia for years and years, figured it was a good start to start giving back (without getting lost in the maze of improving other articles - in retrospect something i should have done first to properly learn how to do this...).

It has been picked up by notable media in Israel, though of course written in Hebrew. The online outlet Ynet of one of the largest Israeli newspapers Yedioth Ahronoth presents it local news via mYnet, and has published an extensive piece on Unleashed landing its events in Tel Aviv. Will add a section on this.

Unfortunately, there are only few “more notable” sources in existence, as you describe them. Despite the growing interest in what is in fact an international scene, it is not quickly and readily being picked up by “notable” or “mainstream” media, while the event itself is very well attended and rated highly among (its thousands of) visitors, not to mention the well-known artists from the scene who perform there. For this reason I also included the links on all artist/fashion designers, it was not intended as spam at all. Of course, these will now be removed.

In response to a few other comments: V magazine; I considered this notable as (the well-established_ V magazine is distributed world-wide and our event is interviewed alongside other very large, known international events, such as the Electric Daisy Carnival and HOLY SHIP!. Broken link to Marquis magazine; will fix. Vimeo copyright violation; the full link to the episode is available on the NPO website (where it was broadcasted), I will add this link instead. Just figured the cut version would prove more useful. of note: via NPO link you can only watch the between 10pm-6am due to the mature content.

Again I'd like to thank you for the in-depth responses, and helping me understand. I will round off the last edits today. Nichica (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Follow up - added another reference; five-page feature in one of longest running Dutch men magazines Panorama, from 2013. In order to add this, I've rewritten the media section to divide in national and international media features. Nichica (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as it's still questionable for the applicable notability and it's also a somewhat newly founded company so there's unlikely enough better. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Nichica, are you really sure you want to reveal your identity? There's no requirement to. It's up to you, and many people edit under their real identity. But most feel more comfortable using a pseudonym. Wikipedia is a somewhat different place than Facebook and Twitter. And once you start using your real identity, it's very difficult to go back, in the future. There's more information here: Wikipedia:Personal security practices. Your current username could also be used to identify you. If that's not what you want, let us know if you have questions about changing it.

If you have no financial relationship with Unleashed, that makes it much less of a problem for you to edit an article. I'd still be concerned that you might be too close to the organization, to be neutral and objective about it though. You've said things like "I feel that we have supplied the correct information", and "our event is interviewed alongside other [large events]". Combined with a rather advertising-like tone at first, and the fact that you haven't edited anything else on Wikipedia, it might give the impression that you're more interested in promotion than creating a factual article. I'm not saying that's true, just that it might be seen that way, and other people might object to your editing.

I've decided to change my vote above, from "delete" to "draft". That means the article would be removed from the main space, and put into the draft space or your user space to be worked on. I think the BNN show (nationally broadcast), and the Panorama and Marquis magazine articles, plus the other weaker sources, are probably enough to establish the required notability. But the current article still needs a lot of work. It would be better to take your time and work on it as a draft, get feedback and discuss it on the talk page there, until it's ready. Then, instead of creating the article yourself, you could request that it be reviewed and created by someone else. That will help avoid any questions about conflict of interest, notability, etc., that might lead to the article being put up for deletion again. Most of this is already well explained in Wikipedia:Your first article; following it could have avoided the hassle of having the article go through the deletion process, before it was ready. If you really are a bona fide volunteer Wikipedia editor, there are lots of people willing to help. But "Articles for deletion" isn't exactly a friendly and relaxed place to work on things.

If you, TheLongTone, Larry/Traveling_Man, and SwisterTwister agree with the suggestion, then we'd have a consensus. The procedure for moving it to a draft would depend on what you decide about your identity. -- IamNotU (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

movining it to a draft seems fine to me...my feeling was that this was probably worth an article, but the current effort did not pass muster.TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - since we haven't heard anything more, I'm changing back to "delete". Normally I'd say an article about a notable subject should be kept, or converted to a stub. But since this was newly created, the notability is borderline, the article is in rough shape, and there may be issues with promotion and WP:NPOV, I'm going to suggest dropping it for now, rather than create an abandoned draft. If someone wants to start over again in the future, they can - this discussion should provide some guidance about it. Can we note a consensus to delete, but no consensus on notability? -- IamNotU (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - The article needs such work that I feel like blowing it up is justified from that alone. However, in terms of notability, I'm not convinced that the entertainment project itself meets the bar in terms of sourcing. There's enough coverage to build a well-researched and cleanly written article on in the first place. The only two things that I've seen that look like reliable sources are the Ynet-related profile article and this glossy German language magazine's short piece. Everything else is more questionable, particularly citing what the project says about itself and what non-notable blogs have posted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but just to point out, the coverage on BNN was fairly significant, being a nation-wide broadcast. Without that, I think it would be rather hopeless. And the Panorama magazine article is not unreasonable. On the other hand, the article on mynet (which is quite a different thing from ynet) is a bit suspect, given that the author admits to having been a personal friend of the event's organizers for twenty years... -- IamNotU (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete – few references to high quality reliable sources, not enough to establish notability. SJK (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2016 (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.