Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newname performance

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. First of all, it is perfectly fine for an article subject to be completely invisible to Google so long as some other significant coverage in the form of print or broadcast can be reasonably demonstrated to exist. That being said, that does not appear to be the case here. The argument to keep is based on the assertion that they exist but does not back up that assertion in any but the most vague manner, making it impossible to judge the validity of those alleged sources. The lack of sources combined with the comments on the talk page suggest that original research was in fact the primary resource used in creating this article. The talk page is also very concerning as it was overtly hostile towards anyone editing the page unless their credentials in the art community are sufficient. If a subject is adequately covered by sources, a person with no knowledge whatsoever of the article subject should still be perfectly able to edit and improve it. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newname performance

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

The subject doesn't appear to be notable. I've found no coverage in reliable sources via Google or Google News, and three entries in Google Books - two of which are prefixed with "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." - the other appears to be a digital media catalogue. Two local newspaper reviews are given in the article, which I've searched for on Google and can't find. An article about one founder, Leslie Streit, exists so a merge and redirect may be possible. Speedy was declined; author contests deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are using GOOGLE as your primary reference for something that ENDED before Google was born? How stupid can you get? Notability for new WP editors seems to consist of "pre-Internet" - which has no value, and "Internet" which is worthwhile. If I were to find a copy of one of the missing books burned in the Library at Alexandria and mention it on WP, you'd probably say it has no value because it isn't in Google?

Do your primary research - Visit the Citadel Cannery arts community, look in the Morgue at San Jose Metro, San Jose Mercury, the grants issued by the State of California, the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. Few if any of these are available online so you'll have to do some leg work. Mccainre (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the group has no value, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia because there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest notability. If you can provide these, please do so. If this group was influential, one would expect it to have been written about in newspapers, reviews, books, journals etc.Dada, the Linked Ring and the Photo-Secession ended long before Google was around, yet they're notable because many people wrote about them. This group doesn't appear notable. The onus to provide evidence of notability is upon you, the creator, not me or anyone else on Wikipedia - do you really think someone on the other side of the world from you is going to 'do some leg work'? Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon died before Google was born, but still a Google search for "Napoleon" returns 15.1 million hits... JIP | Talk 11:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to submit pdfs of the reviews in magazines like High Performance (the gold standard for performance art at the time), San Jose Mercury News and BAVC's VN? Just because someone didn't get massive press at the time does not make them "not notable" - look at the arguments over who invented the first mechanical or electronic computers, where the earliest versions had almost no contemporary publicity. For decades we were told that Babbage was the first because he was a well known public figure in England - now we know that analytical machines were in use in the B.C. era by Greek navigators.

It is contradictory to say that there is nothing in Google about something in the past, therefore it isn't important. I've found that many "notables" in history are poorly represented in Google. You have to look directly to the specialty organizations and publications to establish notability in many areas - and many of these have not yet been placed on the web. A good example is within this very note - High Performance magazine. see [1] Mccainre (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mccainre, please feel free to add the urls of the files you mention to the article as references so we can verify the subject's notability. From WP:GNG - "Sources are not required to be available online...". If you can include the author, date and place of publication and the publishing company, so much the better. Google searches aren't the only criterion for inclusion, but we'd expect a subject to have received some internet coverage if it's been influential upon its field. The reason I nominated is that I haven't found such coverage and the article lacks evidence of substantial coverage. Happy Christmas, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, independent sources are produced that give significant coverage to this group. Individual sources need not be available online, but they should be well-cited and described in detail including quotations within the limit of copyright policy. In addition, these phrases on the article's talk page concern me very much: "This article was originated by one of the members of the organization who attempted to be as factual as possible" and "It is a first person eyewitness account of historical events". Those statements indicate that the article has a serious problem with regards to conflict of interest and original research. I fear that these problems are insurmountable in this case, but I will keep an open mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 26 December 2011 (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.