Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

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 no consensus‎. While the arguments for a procedural Keep based on the number of pages nominated was not anchored in policy, the Delete side failed to attain consensus. Views expressed here suggest discussion would be more effective with individual article nominations or smaller groups, perhaps based on country of venue, which would allow using the appropriate country Portal to solicit views. Any editor is welcome to renominate individual pages or small region-based groups without delay. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the lists aren't notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Other problems exist: Verifiability varies, but many of these are poorly referenced. Almost all events cataloged are not independently notable. The lists don't have clear inclusion criteria -- "entertainment events" doesn't specifically exclude or include sporting events, for example. While the lists are mostly music performances, other performances are ignored. mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

-- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic. WIkipedia not catalog. --Altenmann >talk 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to be individually nominated (and some were already kept once or twice before individually); some events are naturally excluded because they're not meant for public attendance (for instance, shareholder meetings or private religious rallies) or don't meet our criteria plain and simple (made for TV events or an obvious industry plant where those in the crowd are paid to be there and fill seats or all get free tickets). As always with these >5 article nominations I just don't see a bulk nom as a good way to filter through GNG/N. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page for all of these, and the only ones that had prior AFD results were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers who have performed at the Mall of Asia, which closed as keep (dubiously), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment events at Perth Arena, which closed as no consensus, neither of which had a second nomination, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In any case, dumping these all down at once as separate nominations will not produce any more meaningful results than bundling them together, so this just isn't a good argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit confusing as "List of entertainers" was nominated under a different name. And I see the "Perth Arena" does have a previous nomination, but my first-time nomination links all work, leading here. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them together because the concerns about failing WP:NOTDB and WP:NLIST and having weak inclusion criteria apply to all of the topics. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against policy and guidelines: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. None of the lists have notability as a class. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The variety of venues makes it impossible to vote here imv. And if i was to vote, I would argue most of these lists are about notable topics as a set and might meet WP:SPLITLIST (and vote Keep all). However, the nominator is in my opinion totally right regarding the fact that certain of these lists would need a better definition of their respective scope, and more sources. But that can be discussed on talk pages.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "imv"? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In my view" Geschichte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. First of all, any complaints about the bundled nomination are nonsense. These are all extremely similar, and dumping 30 listings at once isn't going to be any better in terms of coverage or participation. If (and that's a big if) anyone thinks that any of these lists are sufficiently unique enough of a case to warrant an individual nomination, they can always explain why, and nomination can be updated to have any like that separate.
And second, Wikipedia is not a database of concert (or "entertainment" even) performances. Some of these are wildly unsourced, and for those that do have sources, they tend to be primary to the venue, or just some local news coverage that yes, an aging Def Leppard played here, but no one cared enough to show up. That doesn't pass the smell test for NLIST, as especially evidenced by the vague inclusion criteria. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep these need to be considered individually, Bundling them, while simpler for the person nominating, makes it very difficult for those assessing each articles individual value. While I can evaluate the worth of some venues, I can not evaluate all venues. I would also challenge any of you who a suggesting a sweeping delete of all to prove, on the basis of each particular venue named, that that particular venues list should be deleted. Some may be more appropriately merged into the venues article rather than deleted. The bundled nomination makes no sense in this instance. NealeWellington (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained immediately above, having 30 individual nominations dumped at once isn't going to make a bit of difference in terms of ease of evaluation, and will probably only serve to fragment discussion of this general type of article. And like I also explained, if you think there are any that deserve to get pulled out because they're sufficiently different, you can always just say so, and I doubt anyone would throw up much of a fuss about it. And it's not anyone's job to "prove" that an article should get deleted, an impossible task anyway. People have explained why they think these should be deleted, and just asking for more bureaucratic process without actually demonstrating how it might help just comes across as stonewalling. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A proceedural keep vote might be acceptable if one could show a flaw in the rationale being applied to all the nominations. That is, if one cited reliable sources showing a couple (just two or three) satisfied WP:NLIST, then it would be quite reasonable to argue that the mass nominaton raised questions about appropriate levels of WP:BEFORE and would make a stronger case for invididual nominations. But to date, not a single RS has been shown that satisfies NLIST for a single venue. These appear nothing more than directory listings and as such are against policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "procedural keep vote"? I don't think I've ever heard of it before, and there are two such votes here now. Where can I read about the vote meanings used in AfD? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas a procedual keep is when the nomination for deletion contains errors, see WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Worth noting, it's a different from a speedy keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've heard of a procedural closure before, but never a "procedural keep". To me, they seem quite different: "keep" implies that a decision to keep was made, dismissing the AfD with prejudice ... when really that isn't the intent. (Or is it?) -- mikeblas (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All procedural closes will by definition be keeps in that specific instance (but not necessarily in general); in contrast "procedural deletes" are covered by WP:CSD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an AfD is closed keep, there's the implication that it shouldn't be re-nominated again until some time has passed. Is that also true for a "procedural keep" closure? I think that's so, and that's why I identify a difference between "procedural close" and "procedural keep". -- mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing obliges you to evaluate the worth (do you mean "notability"?) of any venues. Instead, we're evaluating WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB which applies to all of these articles: are the performances notable, as a group? I think they're not, and I think that applies uniformly. I don't appreciate the implication of laziness. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with bundling these articles together is there is no opportunity to address an individual article over the bundle of articles. If for instance I can establish notability for one article, then it will be deleted because the other articles are not notable or if one article is better merged with a corresponding article about the particular venue then the same problem applies. That is what I have an objection to/problem with. I accept there a are are instances where bundling is appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Mike - it wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology, but my overall objection still stands. NealeWellington (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. Is Wikipeidia process really so inflexible that individual exceptions can't be filtered from a bulk nomination without closing the bulk nomination and re-nominating the articles discretely? Seems sad, if so, that such a process stands in the way of doing the right thing. Not to be obstinate, but I don't know what individual nominations would change. If I re-nominated each article, I'd explain the same thing again and again: there's no demonstration of notability of the group of performances, and that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST; plus, there are concerns about WP:NOTDB. How would that be meaningfully different for each? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NealeWellington Nothing in the process suggests one (or more than one) cannot be found notable. I'd certainly support a relisting individually if a couple could be found to satisfy NLIST...but no one seems to be able to identify RS for a single one. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting discussion for another week as it is not realistic to ask participants to evaluate 28 articles over 7 days and because discussion is still ongoing in this discussion. To answer a couple of questions, I've seen bundled nominations closed as Procedural Keeps and the next day, each article has been nominated individually so a nominator doesn't have to wait months for a follow-up. Secondly, I've seen individual articles removed from bundled nominations so it is worth the time to argue to Keep individual articles if you think that notability can be established. I realize that a bundled nomination can seem overwhelming to editors that are inclusionists but the Delete closure is not a done deal. Make your case, for one or two articles or for them all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. This bundling has been so convoluted that not every project appears to have been properly notified, including us at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted? What do you mean? -- `mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] as an example. I think you can count that as a Löschen though. Borgenland (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's an example of convolution. What am I missing? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above reasons. Dash9Z (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: which reasons? The only "Keep" vote says they need to be nominated individually. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NealeWellington. C 679 03:50, 5 September 2024 (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.