Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.O.H.A.


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

N.O.H.A.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable musical group that does not meet WP:BAND requirements. Google searches do not confirm notability. Warrah (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This band appears to meet WP:BAND, with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources The Prague Post and Sofia News Agency . The latter source might also help to satisfy criterion 2, as the group is reported to have several hit records (including a number one) on the German club charts. Some non-English sources are possible as well.   Gongshow  Talk 17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These are listings for upcoming playdates, not in-depth coverage of the band. The Sofia News Agency item looks like a reproduced press release. Warrah (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading criteron 1, it's accurate that the band, while mentioned in two paragraphs in each of the Prague Post articles, is not really the "subject" of either story, so I am changing my keep vote to Neutral.  Gongshow  Talk 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep - but since I've created the article, I suppose my vote doesn't count, or does it? I wrote this on the talk page of the one who proposed the deletion: actually, I don't care. But this is leaving me with a bitter taste about wikipedia. I am not affiliated in any way with N.O.H.A. (excepting, of course, that I've heard of them and I've listened to some of their music). What I start not to like about wikipedia and about what is happening with this article is that the rules you are applying are absolutelly not at all consistently applied. I can find in a few minutes litterally tens of articles about less notorious bands, and nobody seems to care. I was just looking for information about another band and found this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jestofunk (on the french wiki, but you get the picture). And what about Besh O Drom ? There are tons of such articles. I kindly ask those who voted for deletion to explain why the other two articles mentioned above are not proposed for deletion. I repeat, I don't care about N.O.H.A., but that doesn't mean I can't be dissapointed and/or disgusted. It's a matter of principle and consistency. -Paul- (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was just curious if looking for some news would bring some results and I found an article in german (but lost it) and this one in spanish (actually it's on Radio Prague website, spanish-language section): http://www.radio.cz/cz/clanek/117792 . So... news items can be found if one really tries. -Paul- (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: I likewise can't find anything that suggests this band meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Answering Paul's comments, (1) no, being the article's creator doesn't prevent you from entering into any debate or discussion on it; (2) The French Wikipedia is an entirely separate entity, and how they apply their own rules and guidelines is their business; (3) There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, all created and edited by volunteers, and of course we haven't found every single one that doesn't meet our standards - that's exactly why we have AfD.  If you've found an article that doesn't meet policy or guideline, feel free to nominate it for deletion as well; (4) While the Besh O Drom article is poorly written (and I've just tagged it for cleanup), but the article asserts that the group had a platinum release in Hungary, which qualifies under criterion #3; (5)  I strongly urge you to read over WP:MUSIC.  It isn't enough for there to be "news items" about a group.  In order to fulfill the requirements for reliable sources, such a release must be from a published, non-trivial independent, third-party reliable source and be substantively about the subject.  A blogpost about the ten bands a fellow liked at a music festival doesn't qualify.  A press release doesn't qualify.  A Rolling Stone article that's about nothing but the band does qualify, and we need more than one of those to fulfill criterion #1, for instance.    RGTraynor  19:18, 27 November 2009 (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.