Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band)


 * 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. I've read all the delete and keep comments and it's clear that consensus doesn't exist here. I can re-list this AfD if someone is terribly into it, but given that this band – as one of the editors pointed out and so does the article – is the Belarus Government's National Award Winner for Best Rock Band in 2012, if you may it's probable that a re-list may spring up more sources... or not! As the keep editors points out, winning the national award may push the band over the WP:BAND criteria, but just. I am closing this as a no consensus, but have no prejudice over an early renomination provided at least a month is given for editors to spruce up the article.

On a side note, there is significant weight in TheTechnician's claim against Pr12402 and I would strongly suggest to the said editor to understand and read WP:Canvassing and ensure they don't contravene the same going forward. That said, the canvassed editors seem to have clean hands and reasonable judgements; so there's not much to do here. Lourdes 16:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Open Space (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This band completely fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The band has been the subject of an article in one notable publication, Zvyazda, and said article is a softball interview, meaning even it fails to advance notability per it not being independent. Additionally, the article has been the victim of WP:REFBOMB and more broadly WP:MASK, imparting an illusion of notability.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  08:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: I'm going to cut this nonsense to a minimum for any administrators reading. Pr12402 is the primary maintainer of this article. Rosguill and Vit Koz were both inappropriately canvassed into this thread by Pr12402 (see WP:CANVASS). Rosguill was canvassed here, and Vit Koz was canvassed here. Moreover, Melilac was also inappropriately canvassed here, but never showed up. The messages to Vit Koz and Melilac both include "Foreigners here too obsessed" and "Of course, the one who nominated, does not know the source language", and all three were canvassed specifically because Pr12402 knew which way they would vote. Note that I would probably have never known about any of these had Rosguill not thoughtfully disclosed they had been canvassed in their vote (I had to dig up the other two), as they were never disclosed by Pr. Regardless of how the administrator reading decides to vote, this should be taken into consideration, and I feel Pr12402 should be banned from participating in these discussions due to their flagrantly inappropriate, manipulative behavior.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  00:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Under the provision to kindly invite “Editors known for expertise in the field” over at Canvassing, both cases are examples of an appropriate notification, since the notability question is raised about a Belarusian band and the main scope of references put and can be put here are both in Russian and Belarusian. Vit Koz is an expert in Belarusian, can contribute at a decent level in Russian, and more (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=+Vit+Koz). Melilac has shown such useful to this discussion skills as well (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Melilac). So they may help in evaluating sources in these languages.


 * What it comes to Rosguill, this user has put into words takes that showed expertise in the field of WP:GNG (“Editors known for expertise in the field” over at Canvassing) over at Talk:Obongjayar, plus, recently declared that knows Russian here. What's wrong? ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯


 * P.S. Upon opening up the deletion discussion, Marusyandiya, the author of the initial article, had not been informed to let him/her chime in here. So TheTechnician27 violated the rules of such procedure. -- Pr12402 14 June 2019


 * Response Please see here where I explain why what you did is both campaigning and vote-stacking – and therefore inappropriate notification – per WP:CANVASSING. It's excruciatingly obvious based on your own words that you left on their talk pages that you didn't care about their """expert""" opinions (I'm sorry to poke fun at your wording; I'm sure WP:GNG is a difficult field of study), but rather that they would reinforce your opinions in this thread. The fact that you completely fail to even acknowledge this is further evidence that you should not be allowed to participate in other discussions like this.


 * As far as your red herring about notifying the article's creator and "violating the rules" goes, 1) "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" per WP:AFD, and 2) Marusyandiya was last active on the English Wikipedia over 8 years ago; as it's not required and as this user dropped off the face of en.wikipedia almost a decade ago, I didn't feel it prudent to notify them of an ongoing discussion. I can't tell if you legitimately don't understand Wikipedia's guidelines, or if you're simply trying to warp them to distract from your blatantly inappropriate attempt to manipulate this nomination thread.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  07:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Pr12402 7 June 2019
 * I don't see any valid causes to put the article into the deletion process. At now, the notability is bolstered up by various independent, reliable sources, such as Lenta.ru, European Radio for Belarus, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, and more. Anyone can dig into the article and click on the links already put there. I don't know why TheTechnician27 had failed to do that initially without pointing out flaws. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯


 * According to the deletion discussion taken place on Hair Peace Salon, experty.by (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experty.by), Muzykalnaya Gazeta are considered as “such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music” we “should rely on,” which would make the question about the deletion of Open Space a question of the value of this music portal and the music newspaper.


 * In the meantime, more references can be added though as well. I may do that over time too. Pr12402 7 June 2019


 * Okay, some brief context for editors: this user is one of the primary maintainers of this article (EDIT: Upon further investigation, I believe this user has a COI), and the reason why the article is littered with dozens of frivolous references. It was brought to their attention both by and I the other day that their rampant WP:REFBOMBing isn't acceptable. They've demonstrated a clear mentality that more references = more notability, completely disregarding the quality of the sources. The two most surreal examples of this is are article Hair Peace Salon, which currently has 327 181 (now, thanks to Scope creep) references, and the article Gentleman that has a sentence: "Plenty of additional shows in support of the new album material, acoustic and full rock ones, were given during the next half of a year, including the third appearance at the annual “Acoustic of Spring” event in March 2013", which is haphazardly supported by an absurd 30 references. Now that that's out of the way, since  seems to address your points about sources below pretty thoroughly, I'll respond to two quotes:


 * "Anyone can dig into the article and click on the links already put there. I don't know why TheTechnician27 had failed to do that initially without pointing out flaws."


 * I did, and I fail to see why you assume I didn't. Not all of them, mind you, since by your handiwork this article is brimming with, again, dozens of unnecessary references, but I nonetheless sifted through the vast majority of them and uncovered nothing establishing notability.


 * "In the meantime, more references can be added though as well. I may do that over time too."


 * I don't know how many people need to tell you this or how many times you need to be told, but the problem isn't with the quantity of your sources; it's with the quality. Frivolous sources saturate seemingly every article you touch, making looking into all of them like dealing with Gish gallop. It doesn't help make the subject more notable; it just further overcrowds the article's citations, tanking the quality of the article. It's patently obvious that you refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem, and if this article is kept, it and other articles you've disruptively edited will need to be fixed.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to Rosguill, an admin over here as I believe, on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, GNG sources should be actually read as “secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.” While “multiple is intentionally left vague, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and because source quality is more important than source quantity, but in practice it usually means "at least three.” Therefore the article completely meets WP:GNG. -- Pr12402 7 June 2019


 * Comment #2. By the way, such deletion discussion was raised over the Russian Wikipedia about 6 years ago (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:К_удалению/18_августа_2013#Open_Space_(группа) ), and the attempt to delete the article was failed. I just slightly piggyback a bit on the links from there referenced to evaluate notability: National Music Award winners, best albums of 2012, reviews, interview, and news, news, news, news, news... Obviously, notability not diminishes over time. -- Pr12402 7 June 2019


 * Comment so I'm not an admin (and even if I were, being an admin is no big deal), and to be honest I'm not really sure what the sections has quoted from a discussion I had several months ago have to do with the discussion at hand here. The issue is that most of the cited content isn't secondary: it's either question-answer interviews with little-to-no independent analysis, announcements made by the band itself, or brief mentions in Top 10 lists by music editors. (also I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that this article is an example of source quality over quantity) . I'm not going to go through all 43 sources right now so I'm going to refrain from voting. Based on the sources that have specifically been brought up in this discussion, it would come down to whether experty.by is a reliable source––if it is, then I think keep is the correct decision. However, I don't think that a single comment without replies on a previous AfD establishes a consensus that the source is reliable. Based on briefly reading the cited Lenta.ru, Muzykalnaya Gazeta and European Radio pieces, I don't think those have significant enough coverage to contribute to notability, although the Muzykalnaya piece is borderline as it does include a few paragraphs of independent information before the interview. As an added note, in general you're going to be better off citing actual policy and guidelines rather than conversations you've had with other editors. signed,Rosguill talk 05:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep reviewing it a bit more closely, I think that experty meets the rather low reliability bar for music and other uncontroversial topics. I would also encourage people participating in this conversation to look at the sources provided for the linked ruWiki article, as it is a much more concise list, and also includes this review which is an actual example of unambiguously secondary coverage. I wouldn't trust "Belarus Today" for political news, but I think their music review can be regarded as reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 05:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm realizing that now that I've voted keep, my participation in this discussion could be seen as the product of canvassing per this message on my talk page. I'd like to think that I've been impartial in my judgments, but I think it's best to disclose this and leave it to the closing admin to decide how to assess my contributions to this conversation. signed,Rosguill talk 05:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your rationale here. Could you provide the specific articles you think make this subject notable so I can address them specifically? It's tedious to sift through citations when one article's are entirely in Russian, and when the other article's has dozens of unnecessary citations due to citation bombing (no less, by the person who invited you to take a look into this nomination thread). I'd ask Pr12402, but they seem to consider essentially anything notable.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would refuse to even begin sifting through a mountain of sources like that if I didn't speak the language. Luckily I can speak Russian:
 * starts off looking like a database entry, but if you scroll down, it's actually several decent-length reviews by separate writers for the site (dubbed "experts", hence the site name). I've honestly never heard of the source before, but they have an editorial board so I'd say they're good for music until I see someone say otherwise.
 * is a bit long on quotes, but it's also got some legitimate secondary coverage.
 * Meanwhile, in Muzykalnaya Gazeta, we've got an interview that comes with a four paragraph secondary introduction and a concert review.
 * They also won a government award of unclear importance.
 * Plus the piece in Belarus Today that I linked in my previous comment.
 * There's probably more buried somewhere in the pile, I don't think I looked at even half of them (although I did focus on the more promising-looking ones), but I think this is enough to make me vote keep. signed,Rosguill talk 05:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I said I wouldn't address these before, but upon editing some of Pr's other articles, I think I have a stronger grasp on the notability and reliability of these sources. So in order, we have two sources from experty.by, a Belarusian music site which I still think fails WP:RS. Then we have an article from Muzykalnaya Gazeta, which is just a music magazine based in Belarus that I can find basically nothing about. The fourth is yet another a source from experty.by, this time about an award which is of dubious importance. And then finally there's an op-ed from Belarus Today, a source and author whose reliability I know nothing about. Since sources from the same place are considered one for notability purposes, we have experty.by, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, and Belarus Today, that is, respectively, a Belarusian music website of dubious reliablity, a local music magazine, and an op-ed from an online newspaper.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  07:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit of an inclusionist when it comes to pop culture topics in media landscapes I'm not familiar with. The bar that's generally set for music-related topics is that if it's a fully professional publication that has an editorial board and doesn't obviously engage in promotional content, it can be considered reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus the piece in Belarus Today that I linked in my previous comment.
 * There's probably more buried somewhere in the pile, I don't think I looked at even half of them (although I did focus on the more promising-looking ones), but I think this is enough to make me vote keep. signed,Rosguill talk 05:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I said I wouldn't address these before, but upon editing some of Pr's other articles, I think I have a stronger grasp on the notability and reliability of these sources. So in order, we have two sources from experty.by, a Belarusian music site which I still think fails WP:RS. Then we have an article from Muzykalnaya Gazeta, which is just a music magazine based in Belarus that I can find basically nothing about. The fourth is yet another a source from experty.by, this time about an award which is of dubious importance. And then finally there's an op-ed from Belarus Today, a source and author whose reliability I know nothing about. Since sources from the same place are considered one for notability purposes, we have experty.by, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, and Belarus Today, that is, respectively, a Belarusian music website of dubious reliablity, a local music magazine, and an op-ed from an online newspaper.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  07:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit of an inclusionist when it comes to pop culture topics in media landscapes I'm not familiar with. The bar that's generally set for music-related topics is that if it's a fully professional publication that has an editorial board and doesn't obviously engage in promotional content, it can be considered reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit of an inclusionist when it comes to pop culture topics in media landscapes I'm not familiar with. The bar that's generally set for music-related topics is that if it's a fully professional publication that has an editorial board and doesn't obviously engage in promotional content, it can be considered reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Addressing the takeaways brought by TheTechnician27, whose knowledges in the field of evaluating sources in the Russian or Belarusian languages are yet to be shown or proved, given the absence of his edits over the Belarusian and Russian Wikipedias (https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=TheTechnician27&fbclid=IwAR1CrtRJpi0sfT2TjzZJlWOK1qfmHVEKbORX-73H5Qv8T-4f1DUXpV7dslQ), we may lean towards Rosguill's takeaways as he, despite not having corresponded to the language of the main scope of sources edits yet too (https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Rosguill&fbclid=IwAR3_OpS8KcjRLy80ptp3CfHKQPFsBG-3cRRJx2OhuYUUNBn8HYHML2fDIxA), declared that knows Russian to work with such scope of sources at least. Hence Rosguill's vote to keep is going to be counted on.
 * Once again, according to the deletion discussion taken place on Hair Peace Salon, Tuzin.fm “seems to be one of the major evaluators of the hits in Belarus music.”
 * Experty.by is going to be considered as a high-profile source too, since its editorial staff was sort of an all-star example, to name a few critics: Дмитрий Подберезский (founder of the portal, ex-chief editor of Muzykalnaya Gazeta, music columnist over at BelGazeta, author of the music encyclopedia "Энцыклапедыя беларускай папулярнай музыкі" https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15621375), Олег Климов (ex-chief editor of Muzykalnaya Gazeta, music columnist over at Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya (https://www.sb.by/author/153909-oleg-klimov/), anchor of music programs over at the National State Television and Radio Company of Belarus network), Сергей Будкин (founder of Tuzin.fm, anchor of music programs over at Belsat TV (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belsat_Music_Live)), and so forth. It is a pity that Rosguill ventured an insulting tag "experts" (so-called) before getting acquainted with the ins and outs.
 * Let's enumerate sources (more can be added too). We see, there are multiple ones with under the WP:RS umbrella.
 * Zvyazda – http://www.zviazda.by/be/news/20160817/1471464035-open-space-my-chuzhyya-pesni-graem-yak-svae
 * Muzykalnaya Gazeta – http://www.nestor.minsk.by/mg/articles/2006/41/0200.html, http://www.nestor.minsk.by/mg/2007/34/mg73404.html, and more.
 * Experty.by (Belarusian music portal: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experty.by) – http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-pressure-audio (4x album reviews by Дмитрий Подберезский, Дмитрий Безкоровайный, Сергей Будкин, Олег Климов – album #2), http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-deal-silence (4x album reviews by Дмитрий Подберезский, Дмитрий Безкоровайный, Сергей Будкин, Олег Климов – album #1),http://www.experty.by/content/gruppa-open-space-otkrytye-prostranstva?destination=node%2F710 (interview), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-vylozhili-albom-v-set-i-uchat-angliiskii (reviews overviews), http://www.experty.by/content/radi-kontserta-open-space-fanatka-gruppy-rasproshchalas-s-kavalerom-foto (concert review via European Radio for Belarus), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-radi-millionov-serdets-my-i-kitaiskii-vyuchim-fotovideo (interview via European Radio for Belarus), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-evropu-budem-ne-brat-rvat (interview), http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-nashu-muzyku-luchshe-khavayut-v-evrope (interview via TUT.by), and many more: http://www.experty.by/category/artisty/open-space
 * Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya – https://www.sb.by/articles/po-pravilam.html (album review)
 * Rolling Stone Russia (Russian music magazine: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone_Russia) – http://web.archive.org/web/20120504035047/http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/review/11150.html?reviews (album review)
 * Tuzin.fm (Belarusian music portal: https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzin.fm) – http://mpby.ru/news-3532.htm (album review), http://mpby.ru/news-3536.htm (EP breakdown), more: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+space+site:mpby.ru&rlz=1C5CHFA_enBY608BY608&ei=mzj9XNLAGafmrgTB2KaYDw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiS-oXI7dziAhUns4sKHUGsCfM4ChDy0wMIbg&biw=1680&bih=877
 * LiveSound.by (Belarusian music portal: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveSound.by) – https://web.archive.org/web/20081003132725/http://livesound.by:80/articles/british-lovers/ (full breakdown of Hair Peace Salon vs. Open Space)
 * etc.
 * P.S. I have to point out TheTechnician27's unkind behavior here, who is trying to bring Rosguill into an alliance to go against me with sort of #Guidance talks, intentionally not wikilinking my username to let me get a notification. TheTechnician27 had been originally informed by me with a kindly proposal to #Pump the brakes. Apparently, Rosguill is going to support such shenanigans. This one line was for admins who will summarize the deletion discussion. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019
 * First, allow me to say that this accusation has nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination at hand and thus does not belong in this discussion thread; nonetheless, since you've lodged such an accusation, I'm inclined to respond. Response: It's transparently disingenuous to suggest I was trying to form some sort of "alliance" against you with Rosguill; I merely asked of them the following: "I was hoping you might be willing to help guide me, or to hear me out as a fellow editor." Rosguill then informed me – without prompt and of their own volition – that you had attempted to bully them by threatening to nominate one of their articles for deletion after they PRODed one of yours; they went on to state that you are WP:NOTHERE, an assessment I fully agree with. Of their own discretion, they further reopened my ANI discussion to report your bullying, and two other experienced editors with whom I'd had no prior relation voiced their concerns about you – including supporting some form of ban – on the now-reopened incidents discussion.


 * As far as forming alliances pertains to this discussion, however, I would like to note that this editor attempted to inappropriately WP:CANVASS both Rosguill and another editor named Melilac to vote in this thread. To be clear, I didn't intentionally decide not to wikilink your username, but in hindsight, I'm exceedingly glad I didn't.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I got mixed up in the mess over at Hair Peace Salon, which was created and preposterously ref-bombed by the same user, Pr12402. (Edit - He/she did not create the Open Space article but ref-bombed it later.) I suggested keeping Hair Peace Salon's article but reducing its trivial tidbits by a good 90%, an idea that Pr12402 has spent months resisting with red herring arguments. Pr12402 will spend pages and pages arguing about whether a source is reliable, but consistently misses the point about whether anything notable has been said when a reliable source briefly mentions the band in question. This here article on Open Space is overwhelmingly the victim of WP:REFBOMB and more broadly WP:MASK, as said nicely by the nominator. Yes the band has been mentioned in reliable sources, but almost every single mention appears to be a brief point about some minor tidbit of information, such as the fact that the band's song was played at some time and they were once on the same stage as someone else. (continued below...)
 * No evidence of notability just because they have several short mentions of trivial details in some reliable sources. Here is an allegory I used in the old deletion discussion for Hair Peace Salon: There might be a New York Times article telling us what John Lennon ate for breakfast on July 11, 1975 because he was interviewed that day and the journalist casually asked what he had for breakfast. This does not mean that an encyclopedia article on John Lennon needs to mention that he enjoyed some pancakes on July 11, 1975 even if that non-notable tidbit is in a reliable source. This is where ref-bombing gets you. Open Space has nothing but trivial tidbits. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the refbombing is making it difficult to split wheat from chaff, but I think, , comprise more than trivial coverage, although you can dispute the reliability of the latter two. signed,Rosguill talk 00:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I could be persuaded of Open Space's minimal notability, but if so we need assurance that the wheat really will be separated from the chaff, which in turn would reduce this article by a good 95%. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The refbombing only began in earnest with Pr12402's heavy involvement with the article starting in May 2017, so one option would be to revert to before then. Alternatively, as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the ruWiki article has a concise references section that includes almost all of the significant coverage, with the possible exception of the RollingStone piece (I wouldn't blame anyone for not having seen it, though, given the bloated nature of the discussion). signed,Rosguill talk 02:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think WP:JUNK roughly sums up my feelings about all of the articles has created or, like this one, effectively hijacked. If there's a consensus of minimal notability for Open Space, while I currently disagree, so be it; in that case, I think the article should be WP:TNT'd and rebuilt from the ground up with actual good, reliable sourcing, to the extent that it's even possible. The problem, of course, is where we draw the line at reliable, because Pr will undoubtedly take a mile if given an inch.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  02:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What type of coverage are you asking for? There are various high-profile album reviews, long interviews that are not short mentions, eg. trivial coverage. Melilac, Vit Koz have already expressed their thoughts over at the Hair Peace Salon deletion discussion, so Experty.by, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, Tuzin.fm shall be considered relable. I've brought to the discussion here some background of their stuff too. Do you know other reliable sources in the field of Belarusian music to refer to?
 * Ah yes, I forgot that Melilac and Vit Koz were the sole arbiters of reliably sourcing information. I guess we may as well replace WP:RS with "Just ask Melilac and Vit Koz lol". That I don't know of other more reliable sources in the niche field of Belarusian music has no impact on the notability of these sources.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  08:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are not many wikipeidians over the Belarusian and Russian Wikipedias, band natives, who know Belarusian and Russian and also known English to dispute in this language very well. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

According to Notability (music) the notability of the article has to be proved right. There are 2 albums: one on West Records (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Records), one on Vigma (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigma). Both labels last/lasted for a dozen of years, have/had a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable: N.R.M., Jitters, Hair Peace Salon, beZ bileta, Krambambula, etc. for West Records, Vasily Rainchik, Polina Smolova, Alexander Solodukha, Eduard Khanok, Victor Vuyachich, Igor Luchenok, etc. for Vigma. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019
 * It appears, deliberately or not, that you've misread WP:BAND. Its very first line states: "Musicians or ensembles [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", and the article's lead section states, "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Moreover, it would seem like an overwhelming majority of those bands and artists you list have questionable-at-best notability, with HPS obviously being the most notable, relatively speaking. That these artists have a Wikipedia article does not advance their notability in any meaningful capacity.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  08:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You just had to delete these pages first. At now, these articles about bands/singers are on Wikipedia. Once again, the Open Space article passes WP:GNG (multiple WP:RS coverage) and WP:BAND (under the album provision #5 at least). -- Pr12402 10 June 2019
 * According to criteria for musicians and ensembles, Open Space passes


 * #1 (another album review to add on top of all what has been brought here already http://ultra-music.com/articles/releases/7994, http://ultra-music.com/articles/7851 (article about the band lead vocalist), and more)


 * + European Radio for Belarus (album review https://euroradio.by/open-space-pressure), https://euroradio.by/open-space-z-novym-mini-albomam-u-pragrame-euraradyyo (on-air radio show), https://euroradio.by/prezentacyya-na-euraradyyo-singl-tancuy-ad-open-space, https://euroradio.by/report/vital-macieuski-belarusy-hochuc-razumec-pra-shto-spyavae-vykanauca-126383, https://euroradio.by/open-space-vypadkova-znyali-antyvaenny-klip-videa, more


 * #2 http://www.experty.by/content/luchshie-albomy-2012-top-10-za-pervoe-polugodie-audio (top-10 album in 2012)


 * #7 National Music Award 2012 winners (as Best Rock artist): http://ultra-music.com/articles/reviews/10940

"Rock Coronation Awards" 2009 as "Best Pop-Rock Band".


 * #12 Obshchenatsional'noe Televidenie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-mynbYcAow, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8kEUe9dD2E


 * Ctv.by (one of 3 main TV channels in Belarus https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/СТВ_(телеканал,_Белоруссия) ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqIkj8HJUC4 / http://www.ctv.by/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82-%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D1%8B-open-space-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8bAItV4zAo


 * Tut.by (the most visited Belarusian web-portal, producing online-TV too) https://news.tut.by/kaleidoscope/280249.html, https://news.tut.by/tv/234357.html (2 live QA+gigs over there), https://news.tut.by/culture/212607.html, etc. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019
 * . I admit that the article contains insignificant facts. But this is an occasion to improve and refine the article, and not to delete it. You should rely on such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music as "experty.by" or "Muzykalnaya Gazeta". Such sources attach importance to the subject of the article. Vit Koz (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2019 (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.