Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korphai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korphai[edit]
Non-notable music ensemble. Unsourced for over a year, no reliable sources on Google (though admittedly searching for a Thai music group is problematic), nothing at artistdirect.com or allmusic.com. If somebody can provide reliable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nom. Corvus cornixtalk 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep You cannot say "non-notable". You can only say "notability not evident" And there are reliable sources in google. I added one, but I admit you have to sift thru much. There also several CDs released, in addition to listed in the article. Mukadderat 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable band, (yes, I can say that) fails WP:MUSIC. The source listed in the aricle only mentions the group in passing and provides a picture. That certainly does not qualify as multiple reliable sources as needed per the notability guidelines. --Cyrus Andiron 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Has a number released CDs, exists for very long time, hence complies WP:MUSIC. It is sad to see anglophone bias combined with laziness. I added two more references. `'Míkka>t 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the personal attacks. Not only am I biased, but lazy? I went through several pages of google hits looking for reliable sources for these guys, and I don't see that those you added meet the reliable source criteria. As I said, I would withdraw the nom if there were reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why they fail "reliable source criteria". We are not talking about a garage band here. We are talking about a large folk music orchestra led by a university professor, touring internationally. Once again, it is sad he have anglophone bias here, so that no Thai readers can expand this article. You are entitled to your opinions, just as I to mine. `'Míkka>t 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be more than happy to have reliable sources. But please point to what makes the sources in the article reliable. Corvus cornixtalk 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why they fail "reliable source criteria". We are not talking about a garage band here. We are talking about a large folk music orchestra led by a university professor, touring internationally. Once again, it is sad he have anglophone bias here, so that no Thai readers can expand this article. You are entitled to your opinions, just as I to mine. `'Míkka>t 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the personal attacks. Not only am I biased, but lazy? I went through several pages of google hits looking for reliable sources for these guys, and I don't see that those you added meet the reliable source criteria. As I said, I would withdraw the nom if there were reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone describing you as lazy - I think that refers to the fact that nobody sourced the article until recently. I can't remember where I saw it or the exact quote, but I think that, somewhere on WP, it says something like we are aiming to encompass all of human knowledge so it seems a retrograde step to delete an article which could usefully be expanded. It does no harm to leave it alone until then - there is no suggestion that it is either biased or wrong I note.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Alice.S 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you don't think that WP:V is an important policy? Corvus cornixtalk 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your blooming problem? Why don't you go and do something useful. Like, revert a couple vandals or write rather than delete. `'Míkka>t 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, still being civil, I see. Thanks for the delightful comments, Mikka. Corvus cornixtalk 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your blooming problem? Why don't you go and do something useful. Like, revert a couple vandals or write rather than delete. `'Míkka>t 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't think that WP:V is an important policy? Corvus cornixtalk 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak deleteWeak keep While editors are asserting it meets WP:MUSIC, they haven't explained how in enough detail that can be confirmed. I've gone through all the current online references, comparing them to WP:MUSIC, and I don't see any criteria that has been met. --Ronz (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Just a quick note to Ronz, AFD is not a vote; we aren't electing a president. You need to back up your reasoning with arguments that justify your position. In oparticular, why severakl released CDs and multiple international touring do not count. `'Míkka>t 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you need to do the same, which was my argument all along. I said that I cannot confirm what you and others are asserting because no one has given enough detail to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm what? Just read the references, provided for each sentence of the article. You are not an authority to "confirm" or "deny" anything. Are you an expert in Thai music? Me neither. All you have right to do is to verify whether the article is sourced and whether it mathces the sources. `'Míkka>t 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to verify what is being claimed. I'm asking for the editors making the claims to give more information to help us all verify the claims. I've started a discussion in the article talk page specifically for such a discussion. The the burden of evidence is on those making the claims. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made not a single claim in the article. All claims are coming from references in three languages which I can read. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude is not an argument either. `'Míkka>t 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing out that you have the burden of evidence per WP:V is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply state what portion of WP:MUSIC you think has been met, and what references support it. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a mistaken understanding of the section "Burden of evidence" in WP:V. It says that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Please list the material which is unattributed. "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" refers to your nonchalant attitude of outright refusal of numerous sources presented in the article as unreliable. For example, please explain me how exactly the credits for musical score in the critically acclaimed film (The Overture) can be unreliable? This alone should settle the question of notability.`'Míkka>t 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing out that you have the burden of evidence per WP:V is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply state what portion of WP:MUSIC you think has been met, and what references support it. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made not a single claim in the article. All claims are coming from references in three languages which I can read. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude is not an argument either. `'Míkka>t 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to verify what is being claimed. I'm asking for the editors making the claims to give more information to help us all verify the claims. I've started a discussion in the article talk page specifically for such a discussion. The the burden of evidence is on those making the claims. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm what? Just read the references, provided for each sentence of the article. You are not an authority to "confirm" or "deny" anything. Are you an expert in Thai music? Me neither. All you have right to do is to verify whether the article is sourced and whether it mathces the sources. `'Míkka>t 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you need to do the same, which was my argument all along. I said that I cannot confirm what you and others are asserting because no one has given enough detail to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note to Ronz, AFD is not a vote; we aren't electing a president. You need to back up your reasoning with arguments that justify your position. In oparticular, why severakl released CDs and multiple international touring do not count. `'Míkka>t 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from "Delete" to "Weak delete" now that editors are working to document how it meets WP:MUSIC. The new discussion on notability has brought up some good points. Because some of the criteria require music expertise to evaluate, I'm holding off responding in the hope that others will do so shortly. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from "Weak delete" to "Weak keep" per my comment above. Some of the references are a bit questionable, but I don't think a deletion is required at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Comment we can only report what sources say about a subject. If there are no sources available to create an article, what can we do? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The article in current state is based solely on sources. Not a single word of personal comment. I am not nearly close to Thailand topics. I cannot cease to be wildly surprized with militant deletionism. I provided a half-dozen references on a topic I cannot possibly be interested in, only to get the article slapped with ridiculous tag "advert". Not a single provided source has even a remote affiliation with the band. `'Míkka>t 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe the references provided in the article establish the group's notabilty. — WiseKwai 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. They qualify under WP:MUSIC criterion #10 and possibly #1. Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for identifying criteria. Could you please, on the article talk page, join the discussion by identifying how #10 is being met? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We also need help identifying how criterion #1 is being met. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original Motion Picture Soundtrack: The Overture qualifies them under #10 and the article boasts a reasonable number of sources, which qualifies them under #1 presuming one is satisfied by the nature of those citations. (Discussion here seems more important than on the Talk page, n'est-ce pas?) Bondegezou (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We also need help identifying how criterion #1 is being met. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google for "กอไผ่" isn't reliable because it's also common words. Googling "วงกอไผ่" (Korphai Band) gives 9,160 hits. Example of a recent ticket sales by Thai Ticket Master: http://www.thaiticketmaster.com/concert/jud15.php (It refreshes to King's 80th Birthday wishing message after loaded however). CD albums for sale: http://www.nongtaprachan.com/th/title_of.php?id=34 (Sorry both are in Thai, but look at the Thai letters for the band name กอไผ่.) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep typical form of Western bias. Since it isn't to be found on google (or difficult to find) it doesn't exist. The whole notability system you mention works for western countries and then not even for all of them. Also the internet is not a criteria for notability. There are comedygroups in existence in Thailand where you can probably not find anything about on the net. But still they exist and are very popular among the population. I know this as I AM a comedian here in Thailand who performs daily. In countries like Thailand many performances will never be recorded in English on the net. But that doesn't mean that most people in that country do not know about it. This group and professor I have met personally and I have seen them perform personally at a major concert (where my group also performed). Just as an example try googling my boss: Doo Dokraedone. You will probably not find him, but virtually every Thai I have ever met knows him from his tv performances and acting in movies. /end of rant Waerth (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (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.