Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Buck Short

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Buck Short[edit]

Does not seem to satisfy any criteria of WP:BAND and has no sources for any claims of notability made. The article claims that they have only just released a debut album on a apparently minor (independant?) record label, have only opened for other acts and have some airplay for a single (again these claims are unsourced). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~' – In fact should be speedy deleted for copyright violation as noted here [1]. If the article can be rewritten and sources supplied I would change my opinion. Shoessss | Chat 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We, as in Wikipedia, not me personaly, appreciate cleaning-up the copyright violation. But the article still needs some work on grammer and speeling (Yes that was intentional). However, I see enough coverage, international not necessarily English speaking (But enough), to say they have established notability. Shoessss | Chat

Speedy Delete Copyvio. Even if it wasn't the band is NN per WP:MUSIC anyhow Doc Strange (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete becuase the copyvio has been removed. they don't pass WP:MUSIC and the article still doesn't assert notability. Doc Strange (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will the deleting admin also see that the template is deleted as well? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Copyvio removed (props to the nom for doing so), but I still don't see quite enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to harm our coverage of the Malaysian music scene by deleting this article. Clean-up is needed, but not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a legitimate reason for keeping. The question is notability not whether you feel it "harms coverage of the Malaysian music scene". Please adddress the notability concern, including the issue of sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a perfectly legitimate reason to keep the article. Delivering notability shrubberies doesn't always help the encyclopedia, there are other ways of improving this article other than deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry but the question here is whether the article is about a notable subject, Wikipedia only contains articles on notable subjects. You cannot just dismiss this fundamental requirement. Can you provide an argument for notability, or not? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band might satisfy criteria 11: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:54 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Thanks. The article does claim that "The first single of the band's debut album (Halal & Loving It), "Fast Times", had significant airplay on Malaysian English radio.", but I do not see any claim that it has gone on "rotation" at a "major radio network", and certainly there are no sources to back that up currently. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Malay, so I don't know if any of this is true. You are right to point out that there is not a cited source for this, but also keep in mind that there is at least one Malaysian who is taking interest in this article (kawaputra) and there are several news sources (some of the other editors have added links to search results). Thus, it isn't implausible. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:02 2008 February 4 (UTC)

Comment. We should be careful to make sure that, just because One Buck Short isn't notable in the US or other countries, that doesn't necessarily make them NN in their home country. We need to make sure that they are indeed NN entities there, too. This goes for the individual band members and recordings articles also up for AFD. I'd hate to see the Malysian equivalent of Sid Vicious deleted simply because we haven't heard of him over here. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to provide an informed opinion as to whether to keep or delete, so I abstain for now. 23skidoo (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign notability is a sketchy issue, but the basis of Wikipedia content inclusion (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N) is proper sourcing and there doesn't appear to be any available sources for this group. It's unfortunate when something that might potentially be notable gets deleted, but we can't just assume that sources might exist. There is an essay about this floating around Wikipedia, but I don't have the link handy. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have fixed the copyvio'd portion of the article. With regards to being NN, the band satisfied some criterias from Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (only needed to satisfy one criteria). kawaputra^torque 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can you please indicate which criteria you feel it satisfies? Also, could you please comment on the issue of sources? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope i got it right:

C.1: Jakarta Post, New Straits Times

C.2: Fly fm, Hitz.fm (local radio stnz), also implies satisfaction of C.11. kawaputra^torque 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No secondary sources appear to be available to verify notability or provide critical commentary, sales figures, etc. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough said Pegasus «C¦T» 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say a bit more? Such as which notability criteria you feel this is evidence of the band meeting. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "2007 SingFest music festival in Singapore". Some of their songs are apparently popular on Malaysian English radio. Editors seem to be confusing famous/well-known with notable, which only means worthy of note. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:39 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Can you please explain which notability criteria you feel this is evidence of the band meeting? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting the primary notability criterion, multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources intellectually independent of the subject, as evidenced by the GNews search which User:Pegasus linked to. cab (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (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.