Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Rooster


 * 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. Consensus is in favor of keeping the article at this time. Due to the fact that this is a Ukrainian band, there will be few or no sources in English. Addtionally, there are five interwiki links and quite a few Google books and news sources, suggesting the subject may be notable. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead Rooster

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is interwiki-linked to five other articles on other language projects. This could either be an indication of notability (in which case searching in English may not turn up foreign-language sources indicating notability), or it could be a case of cross-wiki spamming.  The other language articles all have multiple editors, which suggests the second possibility is not the case.  Deli nk (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. If we have foreign-language RS sourcing that reflects notability, that would be good.  Do those articles contain such RS notability-reflecting sourcing?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are references and external links in the interwiki-linked articles, but I'm sorry I can't help evaluate their reliability. It will take someone who speaks those languages. (... or perhaps Google Translate could help?) Deli nk (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ukrainian isn't one of my strongest languages, but I can read enough to see that most of these books and these news articles refer to the article subject, with many of those potential sources having significant coverage. My Polish is a lot better, leading me to this book with three pages of coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as some of the sources presented in support of the notability of this band -- such as the very first one in the books link presented above -- precede the creation of the band, it is perhaps possible that various of the sources presented do not refer to the band itself. And, of course, there is the issue of whether sources are "reliable sources".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there are some false positives, such as the book that you mentioned which writes about a painting of a dead bird, but the search results with a capital "М" and quotation marks, ("Мертвий півень" or «Мертвий півень») are all, as far as I can tell from the snippets provided, about this band. As regards reliability, the next three Google Books results are a journal from Naukova Dumka, an encyclopedia published by the Lviv Academic Library, and a chronicle of Ukraine published by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, so I don't think there's any problem there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep. I've gone throught interwiki articles and the sources, but it's hard to really evaluate the references without speaking the languages.  In the absence of a Ukrainian to help make sense of it all, I suggest we err on the side of keeping the article.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.