402:. Answering Paul's comments, (1) no, being the article's creator doesn't prevent you from entering into any debate or discussion on it; (2) The French Knowledge is an entirely separate entity, and how they apply their own rules and guidelines is their business; (3) There are millions of articles on Knowledge, all created and edited by volunteers, and of course we haven't found every single one that doesn't meet our standards - that's exactly why we have AfD. If you've found an article that doesn't meet policy or guideline, feel free to nominate it for deletion as well; (4) While the Besh O Drom article is poorly written (and I've just tagged it for cleanup), but the article asserts that the group had a platinum release in Hungary, which qualifies under criterion #3; (5) I
320:- but since I've created the article, I suppose my vote doesn't count, or does it? I wrote this on the talk page of the one who proposed the deletion: actually, I don't care. But this is leaving me with a bitter taste about wikipedia. I am not affiliated in any way with N.O.H.A. (excepting, of course, that I've heard of them and I've listened to some of their music). What I start not to like about wikipedia and about what is happening with this article is that the rules you are applying are absolutelly not at all consistently applied. I can find in a few minutes litterally tens of articles about less notorious bands, and nobody seems to care. I was just looking for information about another band and found this:
328:? There are tons of such articles. I kindly ask those who voted for deletion to explain why the other two articles mentioned above are not proposed for deletion. I repeat, I don't care about N.O.H.A., but that doesn't mean I can't be dissapointed and/or disgusted. It's a matter of principle and consistency.
414:, such a release must be from a published, non-trivial independent, third-party reliable source and be substantively about the subject. A blogpost about the ten bands a fellow liked at a music festival doesn't qualify. A press release doesn't qualify. A
347:: I was just curious if looking for some news would bring some results and I found an article in german (but lost it) and this one in spanish (actually it's on Radio Prague website, spanish-language section):
156:
271:, it's accurate that the band, while mentioned in two paragraphs in each of the Prague Post articles, is not really the "subject" of either story, so I am changing my keep vote to
117:
226:. The latter source might also help to satisfy criterion 2, as the group is reported to have several hit records (including a number one) on the German club charts. Some
150:
227:
253:
These are listings for upcoming playdates, not in-depth coverage of the band. The Sofia News Agency item looks like a reproduced press release.
418:
article that's about nothing but the band does qualify, and we need more than one of those to fulfill criterion #1, for instance.
17:
90:
85:
171:
94:
138:
441:
77:
36:
440:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
221:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
132:
410:. It isn't enough for there to be "news items" about a group. In order to fulfill the requirements for
219:
128:
426:
387:
360:
337:
312:
308:
287:
262:
243:
200:
164:
81:
59:
383:
178:
73:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
370:
356:
333:
258:
196:
407:
399:
300:
419:
304:
268:
211:
188:
55:
144:
379:
278:
234:
398:
I likewise can't find anything that suggests this band meets any of the criteria of
411:
215:
224:
111:
352:
329:
325:
254:
192:
50:
348:
373:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
434:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
324:(on the french wiki, but you get the picture). And what about
191:
requirements. Google searches do not confirm notability.
107:
103:
99:
321:
163:
351:. So... news items can be found if one really tries.
378:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:). No further edits should be made to this page.
299:: I can't find significant coverage for this
187:Non-notable musical group that does not meet
177:
8:
7:
349:http://www.radio.cz/cz/clanek/117792
24:
322:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Jestofunk
214:, with non-trivial coverage in
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
427:19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
388:01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
361:11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
338:18:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
313:23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
288:19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
263:18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
244:17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
201:17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
60:08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
210:. This band appears to meet
461:
437:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
406:urge you to read over
223:and Sofia News Agency
230:are possible as well.
228:non-English sources
44:The result was
390:
286:
267:After re-reading
242:
452:
439:
423:
412:reliable sources
377:
375:
285:
282:
276:
241:
238:
232:
218:The Prague Post
216:reliable sources
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
451:
450:
449:
448:
442:deletion review
435:
421:
368:
280:
277:
236:
233:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
458:
456:
447:
446:
430:
429:
392:
391:
376:
365:
364:
363:
341:
340:
315:
293:
292:
291:
290:
247:
246:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
457:
445:
443:
438:
432:
431:
428:
425:
424:
417:
416:Rolling Stone
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
374:
372:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
289:
284:
283:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
248:
245:
240:
239:
231:
229:
225:
222:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
436:
433:
420:
415:
403:
395:
369:
344:
317:
296:
279:
272:
250:
235:
207:
206:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
326:Besh O Drom
151:free images
422:RGTraynor
269:criteron 1
305:Joe Chill
281:Gongshow
237:Gongshow
408:WP:MUSIC
404:strongly
400:WP:MUSIC
380:Tim Song
371:Relisted
118:View log
74:N.O.H.A.
66:N.O.H.A.
396:Delete:
345:Comment
273:Neutral
251:Comment
212:WP:BAND
189:WP:BAND
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
353:-Paul-
330:-Paul-
297:Delete
255:Warrah
193:Warrah
129:Google
95:delete
46:delete
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
384:talk
357:talk
334:talk
318:Keep
309:talk
301:band
259:talk
208:Keep
197:talk
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
179:TWL
116:– (
386:)
359:)
336:)
311:)
303:.
275:.
261:)
199:)
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
382:(
355:(
332:(
307:(
257:(
195:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.