Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Project (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. Having read this entire discussion (as well as the last AfD), I see no consensus either way. On one hand, we have editors (such as the nominator) suggesting that the article's cited sources are not reliable, third-party sources, which are required per GNG (regardless of project-specific notability guidelines, disregarding them under the reasoning that their stipulations "may" establish notability). On the other hand, there are editors who believe that the group meets either or both GNG and the project-specific guidelines. As this is the second AfD within a month's time, I feel relisting will likely also fail to achieve consensus, and as such, am closing it as no consensus with apologies to the nominator, who obviously has spent much time meticulously promulgating his admittedly valid viewpoint, and to those supporting outright keeping of the article, who also have valid reasoning. My advice is that the editors involved wait a few months, and try again if some editors still feel it is necessary. Best, Go Phightins! 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Project

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fly Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently, an AfD on this closed as "no consensus". I then proceeded to remove the "sources" with which the article is stuffed, as they simply do not belong in an encyclopedia, as will be shown. The article creator proceeded to restore them, with the edit summary "not biruitorul decides which sources are reliable and which not". Now, if I understand his rather limited English correctly, my response is that as an editor in good standing, I very much can decide on reliability of sources, and if there's a complaint about a particular link I removed, that can be resolved via discussion. However, since the article creator appears uninterested in this process, it seems best to return here and achieve a consensus this time. Hence the new AfD.

So, just what are these "sources"? Well, for starters, many of them are based on the band's biography at their official site.

  • This one is a Russian translation of said biography. Also, I'm not clear on what makes www.europaplus.ru a reliable source.
  • Likewise. And romanian-music.net is definitely not reliable; it's user-submitted.
  • As for this: I'm afraid www.starmania.ro is also a user-generated site.
  • This appears to be yet another Russian translation of their publicity material. Moreover, www.fly-project-la-musica.ru (just look at the URL) cannot be considered a reliable source.
  • And another rehash of their promotional stuff, this time in a radio station directory.
  • Directory entry, and again, without any sort of depth.
  • Press release from MTV about MTV awards. Discard per WP:SPS.
  • The Russian thing is getting a bit boring, so all together now: here and here and here and here and here we have yet more Russian translations of Fly Project's official biography, on sites we have absolutely no reason to believe are reliable sources: www.energyfm.ru, www.zvezdi.ru, muzebra.com, music.ivi.ru, www.piter.fm.

The article looks like a classic case of WP:MASK, where multiple links are thrown together to create the appearance of notability where none exists.

This time, I hope we can achieve consensus to delete. And in closing, I will add that before we can even consider whether criteria 2-12 of WP:MUSICBIO may apply toward this band's notability, it's imperative that point 1 be satisfied — "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" — at least insofar as the claims in the article are made. In other words, chart positions and award nominations are mentioned, but as things stand, they are meaningless unless and until reliable sources emerge confirming those assertions. Thus far, that has manifestly failed to occur. - Biruitorul Talk 04:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: added other sources which confirms chart positions in different countries for some of band songs. I repeat - band is notable. Maybe they are not notorious, because they not appeared in TV shows or not offered interviews, but they are notable, at least for music they produces. XXN (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply repeating that something is notable does not magically make it so. Let's look at what you've added instead. You've added their Facebook page, which obviously is meaningless as a source per WP:SPS. Then you added eighteen links to charts - things like this. I'm sorry, but that is trivia, and WP:MUSICBIO is fairly explicit in demanding "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Keep looking for those non-trivial, independent, reliable sources if you wish, but so far, you've come up glaringly short. The fact that the band has not been the subject of such coverage (as far as we can tell) strongly, even implicitly, indicates a lack of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 14:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and i present you at least 3 critearias met by band:

XXN (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice: may be notable; "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Even if this band has placed on some chart or been played on some radio station, WP:GNG still applies, and signs of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" still need to be shown, not just the trivia you've produced thus far. - Biruitorul Talk 19:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
....”Even if this band has placed on some chart or been played on some radio station” band is not notable and article must be deleted because user Biruitorul want this, and nothing else matters. XXN (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. From what I can see, they've had multiple singles on national charts. My concern is sourcing. Other than the singles rankings, nothing is adequately sourced. The only biographical info in the article cites the band's own Facebook page, which is of course not a reliable third-party source, and the MTV Europe award nomination is sourced to MTV's own page. They've had hit singles and, according to the article, won a Romanian Music Award (though this claim is not sourced at all), so some media outlet must have written something about them. All I've been able to find is [1], but it's pretty cursory and I can't really assess its reliability (at least, it seems to be independent of the subject, and not user-edited), and I can't read Romanian, so my ability to search in depth is limited. I'd be more confident if more reliable third-party sources featuring more then trivial coverage or passing mentions of the band could be found. — Gwalla | Talk 07:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • romanian-music.net may not be connected to Fly Project, but it has the feel of a self-published site. I can't quite put my finger on it, and you needn't take my word for it, but something about the layout, the ads, the promotional tone suggests it's not a professional publication.
    • Other than that, as you indicate, the rather striking thing is the scarcity of quotable sources. We haven't been given a citation for their alleged Romanian Music Award, and what I could find by searching in Romanian mainly consisted of routine coverage - concerts in provincial cities, birthday concerts and that type of thing. More substantial coverage remains elusive.
    • Even if we grant that the band has reached some chart positions, I would argue that doesn't by itself constitute encyclopedic notability - that some sort of prose source is needed to accompany the raw data on charts. - Biruitorul Talk 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added source for Romanian Music Awards (It also contain full list of nominations and winners). XXN (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. As mentioned many times already on this page, WP:GNG applies here. Specifically "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Honestly this band should be included in the encyclopedia if it can be shown on reliable sources. The band must be notable then get an article, not the other way around.♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:20, 24 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article contains references to sources do not meet the WP:RS criteria, they should be removed. If we cannot find any reliable source for some phrases in a reasonable amount of time, we should remove those phrases too. However, the band seems notable to me and I think we can find enough reliable sources to keep the article. In my opinion, MTV Romania is a reliable, independent source, when they say "Fly Project is one of the most successful names in Romanian dance music", so WP:SPS is not an issue for this phrase. If you want an independent source for the nomination, we can find Evenimentul Zilei or TV Mania, for example. As for in-depth coverage of the band, we have the profiles published by Pro FM and MTV Romania, which, inspite of the promotional tone, are published by independent websites. According to WP:CHART, for the chart positions, acharts.us is a reliable source (at least for the France charts); so is FIMI for the Italy charts and ZPAV for Poland chards (cited in the article). About their debut and the two albums we can find some information at Mediafax. And finally, another clue that Fly Project is a notable band is the description of this book (published in Romanian language at Polirom), where Fly Project is listed (among others) as a famous Romanian band. Razvan Socol (talk) 19:00, 24 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fly_Project_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137853189"