Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Project

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Project

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

There is no evidence of notability as expressed through coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Six external links are given and all are, well, junk. This is self-published, this is user-submitted, this is some random video, this again is self-published, this and this are execrable cruft. Again, no indication of WP:BAND being met. This was twice speedily-deleted (in 2006 and 2013); it's time to torch it via AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore non-notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@Biruitorul, You must prove that those articles are self-published. I don't think so. And what a fail declaring this article self-published. First: it's written in Russian, not in Romanian (band members are Romanians, they don't know Russian). And article doesn't seems to be even submited by band to publisher - it is written not in Promo style, but in informational style, something similar like in Russian wikipedia. Second: article is published by Europa Plus - (one of) the most popular Russian musical radio station, and i don't think they will promote ”some shitty, anonymous Romanian band” (like you think).

I can say more, not only band is notable - it have also several notable singles, which entered in national charts in several European countries includin Romania!! For example look here > Template:RoNumber1s and you'll see that band entered several times in Romanian Top Charts.

In addition see section ”Awards and nominations”.

Jackmcbarn's opinion can be ignored (for partiality), because prior to this he Requested speedy deletion. How we see, this is not the case for ”speedy”.

Also take in consideration that article was kept on other 4 wikipedias, and thither it was not created by me. XXN (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I requested a speedy of the page in the past is no reason to ignore my opinion. In fact, considering an article on this band has already been speedily deleted 3 times, I'd say it strengthens the statement that they're non-notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that band was not notable several years ago does not mean that it is not notable either now, or in general will never be notable. We have to consider only the current situation, excluding (ignoring) previous deletions. XXN (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say to ignore my opinion because I tagged it for speedy? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you will try to obtain deletion at any price, in order to not compromise yourself for your speedy tag :)) XXN (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published source is not necessarily one published by the subject of the article, but is any source that has not gone through an editorial process and is user-generated.

Given that you've started putting this kind of thing into the article - which under no possible interpretation meets WP:RS - I think we can invoke WP:MASK: "the use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable."

Once the cruft is stripped away, there's really nothing left. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets at least the following criteria from WP:BAND:
- several singles in national music charts (Raisa #1 on four weeks in Romanian Singles Chart in 2005, Goodbye #4 in End-Year Chart 2011 (Romania), Raisa #51 in France Single Top 100 on 12 august 2006)
- nominated for a major music award (2008 MTV Europe Music Awards)
- several albums on a major independent Romanian label (two albums at Roton)

and on a more personal note, having more than 100 million views on their official Youtube channel surely says how popular they are. Razvan Socol (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note what WP:BAND states: a band "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria"; "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". While Fly Project may have been nominated for some award or had some song appear on some chart, that of itself does not necessarily guarantee notability. The lack of meaningful sources - and WP:GNG does apply here ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") - is glaring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that that if this were an American chart topping band there would be no question of deletion. We should keep this per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:IMBALANCE. Spinning Spark 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Kww just noticed, several of the charts they were listed as topping were WP:BADCHARTS. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are talking about this edit which still left a claim in the article that they topped the charts in at least eight countries. Still pretty impressive. Spinning Spark 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, do you have any evidence derived from reliable sources that indicates work by this group topped charts anywhere? What makes www.fly-project-la-musica.ru, the source for these claims, a reliable source? To ask the question is to answer it: there's no way this is reliable; it's merely a Russian translation of the band's own website. Fly Project can make whatever claims they wish; it doesn't mean they're true.

Before going on about "systemic bias" - which sometimes is a legitimate concern, but often is a way of validating trivia ("surely you don't want to remove material about that underdeveloped country, do you, even if it's garbage?") - you might want to do a little digging first. Frankly, I expect more considered reasoning from someone who's been editing Wikipedia for over 2600 days, of which the last 1800+ have been as an administrator. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about music charts and couldn't tell a good chart from a bad chart. Your original comment left the impression that that all the charts had been identified as bad charts (although I realise that is not what you actually said). I was merely pointing out that only two of the ten claimed charts had been removed on those grounds. If they are really not chart-topping I might change my !vote, but at the moment that claim is unchallenged, at least in the article. Spinning Spark 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'm not sure what you mean by challenging a source within an article, though I did tag the questionable source if that's what you mean.

Anyway, the way I've always understood AfD works is that you examine the notability of a topic based on the sources presented in the article and whatever else you may be able to find, and that AfD itself is a perfectly valid venue for challenging the reliability of sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Spinningspark. Realistically, this is a nice article. The music they make is really nice, just search Fly Project Toca Toca on youtube. There is no reason to delete this article. Biruitorul is one of the organized group who systematically seek out and destroy Romania-related articles on English wikipedia using various WP:*** tools to "justify" their actions. This group deleted my article in 2008 and as a result I stopped contributing to wikipedia at that time, as there is no point to contribute content or financially support a site that tolerates this kind of actions from this sorry excuse for a loser and his group, and permits them to delete other people's work. Looks like 6 years later he's still at it! Likely getting paid to do this. I would suggest a better organization for wikipedia - like stackoverflow, where any user can get credibility by contributing more and more, rather than the wikipedia style where the users who were first got credibility and superuser status for free, and now they get to decide who else may get privileges, if any, after many years. Too bad. Look to stackoverflow for inspiration and stop people who did not earn their privileges from deleting Romania-related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, a vote filled with personal attacks and meaningless rationales ("this is a nice article") should be summarily discounted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 29 April 2014 (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.