Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nine Club

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. Non policy based keep votes fail to overcome policy based delete votes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Club

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

I cannot find substantial information on this podcast in independent reliable sources, so I think it fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi gentlemen, thanks for taking up this discussion. I'd like to bring up a few things: first, this is still a work in progress (WP:DEMOLISH, for example) and it is of high relevance to hundreds of thousands of listeners/viewers each week (myself included; I am in no way attached to the Nine Club).

As for notability, it is a podcast featuring dozens of the world's most important skateboarding personalities. Certainly, not a scientific topic, but each host meets notability criteria as do the vast majority of guests.

That said, the idea that the Nine Club "lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources" is off for a few reasons. First, it is heavily covered in international skateboarding media (print and digital: see here for one example: http://www.jenkemmag.com/home/2017/07/19/behind-scenes-nine-club-studio/ or the 64 articles on Transworld Skateboarding, an independent and longstanding print and digital publication). Yes, the page needs updated with more sources beyond the Nine Club pages. I agree. I will take that upon myself to update and improve, under each of your watchful eye. But just because there are no peer-reviewed articles that mention the show doesn't mean that coverage is not "sufficient" for notability. I am myself a scholar employed at an American research university and I must say, suggesting this page for deletion while hundreds of much more questionable pages exist strikes me as a lack of understanding the content area or the cultural weight and international import of skateboarding, its history, and media culture. --Mariano Landa (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, ~~[still keep]~~ I've made some revisions and included links to more than a half-dozen outside sources (journalism) in order to quelch doubts of "sufficient coverage in reliable sources." I'm aware that there is no scholarly research on the topic, and as such, I would suggest that specialist media serves to validate notability. Many subcultures do not get regular mention in major international outlets (say The New York Times or El Pais), but do get consistent and unbiased coverage from specialist media sources that are both reliable, professional, and intimately related to the subculture/demographic to which they relate. Please comment. Again, my intention is not to advertise for The Nine Club, but to highlight how this project serves as oral history archive broadcast and preserved for the skateboarding world and world at large. Mariano Landa (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. Well, thanks for your efforts, and for adding sources. Sources are certainly needed. Concern must be about the quality of the sources so far added. They are definitely from the subculture which means they are unlikely to confer notability and might be considered simply unreliable. On your goals, they sound laudable but Wikipedia is not an archive, shrine, or museum. On WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we are all painfully aware there are more things that ought to be deleted or radically pruned, and we're working on it, but their existence is no justification for adding to the list. If nothing better can be found to support the article's claims (and none of us have found any better sources) then deletion will be the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick et al, I thought that this was not a numeric vote, per se, but a means of discussing and proving or disproving the merits of a page based on argumentation. You've overlooked this fundamental point in the deletion debate.

A fundamental problem with the notability/sourcing guidelines is the inability to recognize robust and legitimate subcultures as appropriate content for Wikipedia. Again, I recognize that there is no scholarly sourcing related to this page. Of course there is not. I also recognize that the topic has not yet graced the pages of the New York Times. However, we are in a digital age wherein notability is not only marked by the gatekeepers of traditional print media and the sourcing norms continue to jeopardize the creation and aggregation of legitimate entries (by way of overall cultural importance and critical mass of interested and involved participants to whom the subject is highly relevant). While I don't expect any of you to rectify this, your pedantry smacks of cultural elitism more than any real justification for removal. To quote you, Chiswick Chap, in an earlier argument of yours for keeping an article: "it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable"

To speak more directly to your point, a question prefaced by an example: underground but major/prominent musicians are often only written about by subcultural media. The same goes for visual artists (high culture, high art, etc.). These pages continue to exist with limited to no debate or question given that they are cited by subcultural media. Why would skateboarding media not be held to the same standard? Or is the argument that everything shy of Rolling Stone or the American Art Review coverage should be deleted? I'm sure that you must at least sympathize with this point. Mariano Landa (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can sympathise with your (lengthy) plea for this article, and your ingenuity and diligence in searching for my quote, but I was making a far different point from what you hope I was saying in that other discussion. I was asking whether reliable sources, not yet cited, existed to demonstrate notability, as that's how we decide matters at AfD; you were hoping I was asking whether unsourceable articles on worthy topics could be notable: I wasn't, and they aren't. If you can find decent sources, I'll change my opinion: I'm not a pedant or cultural elitist, and by the way you can be blocked for using words of that kind about other editors. Lack of reliable sources is the "real justification for removal". Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chap, You've far overstated my use of "cultural elitism" and "pedantry" and they weren't used as a taunt nor as direct insults in the context of many of the insults that I've seen imparted on other editors. As for "decent sources," there are reliable sources now: Billboard Magazine, BET, MTV News, High Snobiety, The Daily Dot. Perhaps these outlets are too modern for your tastes, but all of these outlets have broken major and serious stories in mainstream journalism and their citation of the Nine Club is a legitimation of notability. Their citing and sourcing of the Nine Club should serve to quell doubts as to the reliability or independence of sources. Not to mention the now present citation of the vast majority of major skateboard media outlets, each owned by corporate parent companies of repute. I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that any scientific journal short of Nature can be deemed sufficient if journalistic standards short of the NYT are insufficient. I get the peer review article angle on why any scientific journal would count as a notable source, but the fact that there are activities and groups that have been excluded from peer review sources (on the basis of scholarly cultural elitism) and in which no terminal degree is possible (skateboarding hardly registers within my field of cultural studies) ought to suggest that there is notability in realms beyond the scholarly or the creme de la creme of global journalism. I understand that many of you have dedicated countless hours to Wikipedia and for that I am grateful. I do however request that you open your horizons to the cultural validity of things that are foreign or even stigmatized in your corner of the world and also recognize that the sources related to these activities are valid, notable, and reputable albeit wanton of Pulitzer-holding outlets. Mariano Landa (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You write at great length. Reliable sources, however, go much wider than scientific journals. And kindly stop messing with my username. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Nine Club is an essential and core part of skateboarding culture. To those who are not within the skateboarding scene, The Nine Club is an obscure talk show. To hundreds of thousands, though, it is a source of information and entertainment of both historical skateboarding icons, and current professionals. Additionally, the show has illuminated many of the inner working of the skateboard industry that were often only insider knowledge. If your standard is solely to have academic style citation and sources alone, then many cultural icons like The Nine Club will be missed. Themidnightwill (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Nine Club is a long running podcast with thousands of listeners that is creating an archive of skateboarding history. It is really that simple, there is far less important topics covered on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinko236 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) This !vote is this editors single contribution to Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then all you people need to do is to demonstrate its WP:Notability, which you haven't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Chiswick "you people." Now that's an insult. That said, per your insistence that we need to demonstrate notability, let's review. Notability is determined "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This page checks that box assuming admission of source reliability. On to that, here's the definition of reliable sources that mark notability, which would actually include skateboarding media, in spite of the fact that it isn't mainstream"

"Reliability: The content guideline to identify reliable sources says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable. If these sources also publish materials online, then it is usually fair to assume that these materials have a similar publication process (see WP:NEWSBLOG). If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully."

All of the skateboard publications are "published materials with a reliable publication process" that appear in print and online. Editors of skateboarding magazines are, indeed "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." The new sources are reliable by definition and certainly independent of the program and its founders, as they're not related to The Nine Club program.

Mariano Landa (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I was just indicating that I was replying to two editors. However, repeating your arguments over and over again at length could definitely be considered "tendentious editing". The problem with your sources is that they're basically in-universe with respect to the topic, which I believe we agree is not mainstream. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think that we agree. "In-universe" sources would nullify thousands of pages otherwise deemed relevant. Billboard, MTV News, etc. are not "in-universe" to skateboarding. They're major media outlets. And I'm not being tendentious. I'm trying to make a point that you either don't grasp or won't acknowledge and I'm hoping that a third party will weigh in or mediate. Mariano Landa (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2018 (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.