Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Baby's


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Baby's
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons I've outlined above as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nn  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for procedural reasons. This is a bad-faith "tit for tat" nomination made in response to my comment at Articles for deletion/DJ Smallz. I contested the prod for Los Baby's, tagged the page underconstruction and asked on the talk page for the community's patience as I translate the Spanish article on this phenomenally popular group with a decades-long career. I expect the community will give it to me, though I know from experience that the nominator will not, because he does not assume good faith. Chubbles (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (see my comment further down) – The evidence, outlined by Chubbles, does indeed suggest that this is a bad-faith nomination. I would close this AfD right now myself, but would request that another admin do it, since I may not be seen as sufficiently neutral given my involvement with the nominator. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The speedy keep voters need to assume good faith, or at least provide some better arguments, as this group does not appear to be notable however I have taken note that a major revamp is in the works and will check back later.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be looking in the wrong places. The Spanish article notes that they are internationally famous and released some 50 albums on es:Discos Peerless, a well-known Mexican label. A 1986 greatest hits compilation even hit the Spanish-language charts in America; . The group is a dead ringer for a WP:MUSIC pass. What made anyone think they were non-notable? Chubbles (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a rhetorical question or are you just being difficult? Sorry, I don't speak Spanish.  If you have sources which demonstrate the notability of this group please do add them to the English Wikipedia article.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, didn't I just demonstrate their notability? I still don't see why this is difficult to understand. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you claimed notability, but did nothing about the failure of verifiability. Adding sources (even if in spanish) would go a long way to making this article a keeper.Yobmod (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure. To be honest, I'd like more input on this.  This appears to be a prolific musical group, but it is not clear to me what their involvement was on the compilation disc 16 Exitos which charted on the Billboard Regional Mexican chart.  RFerreira (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a compilation disc. It was re-released by Fonovisa in 1995. In any case, you can peruse their vast greatest-hits discography, many of which are out on Warner Music International. The key problem I have here is, this group is one of the most important Mexican popular music groups of all time, and we've now deleted their article once and are well on our way to deleting it again. I was hoping that, in writing an article about a group with a 40-year history, who are not English-speaking and were popular before the Internet was invented, that people would be a little more cautious before hitting the delete button. WP:BIAS certainly applies here. I've added more sources which note the group's popularity, though at this point it doesn't look like I'll change any minds. Chubbles (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I read Spanish and the article there establishes notability. It needs translation which I could do, but have no time at this moment. Also keep on the grounds that Chubbles does good work with music/band related articles - s/he has a good track record with these articles and I don't believe s/he'd go to trouble of creating an article on a n-n band. TravellingCari  02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if some of the sources are added to the article. Even in spanish - i expect the vast majority of US wikipedian's should be able to parse enough spanish to find a band's name in an article. If no sourcing, no notability is shown, so deleteYobmod (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you please clarify your thoughts here? It's unclear whether you think the group is notable or not and what you would like done to the article, which already has sources. Chubbles (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – Since this discussion started, Chubbles has expanded and sourced the article, including providing reliable sources to back the claim that the band was "one of the most popular native pop acts in Mexico in the 1960s." Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (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.