Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottopasuuna


 * 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottopasuuna

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It seems that this article only has 1 eligible source, being Chicago Reader. Allmusic biographies are user submitted information. The article in Madozine is not significant coverage of the band and only covers one member. Mandozine also does not seem to be a reliable source. Officialangrydub (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music,  and Finland. Skynxnex (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This should qualify for WP:SK under article 2 due to the nominator's recent back-and-forth with the article's original author in a separate AfD discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/$teven_Cannon). The timing of this nomination is further indication of that being the case and it appears that the nominator selected one of the author's (who is an experienced editor with strong record of high quality content) shorter/weaker articles so that they might stand a chance in deletion. Regardless of speedy keep, the notability of the subject should be verifiable by WP:SINGER 7 per first international album of Finnish folk and 6, for now partially, as Kimmo Pohjonen is a recognized Finnish musician and I suspect the case can be made for one of the remaining members. It already includes at least one WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY source from the Chicago Tribune review (which the nominator erroneously described as Chicago Reader). More sources might be needed (as of now, I could find short reference in The Beat, Volume 16, 1997 and a mention in Oliver, Paul, Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World United Kingdom: Continuum, 2003, the latter of which should be sufficient to verify the band's notable position in relation to Finnish folk). The request is without much merit; it might warrant a tag on the article, though an AfD unfortunately seems like an intentional disruption. Ppt91 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify: @Doomsdayer520 is the author involved who I think might be targeted for disruption nomination and should qualify for SK criteria under WP:SK article 2. Ppt91 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The timing of this nomination is indeed suspicious, and you can see at Articles for deletion/$teven Cannon that the nominator is lashing out at other editors in that discussion and showing little regard for Wikipedia policies. Also, the nominator missed the fact that this band also has an album article here, which shows poor investigation before taking action. If the nomination is targeted at me, others can investigate, but the nominator has already shown a certain inability to detach arguments about WP policies from the subject of the article under discussion. Meanwhile, here is some history on the article. Someone had already created an article for Ottopasuuna (album), which I noticed as a member of the Albums Project, but there was no article for the band. That contradicts WP traditions, so I created the article on the band in good faith and for the benefit of readers, though I was previously unfamiliar with the band. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article, if it survives this process I will personally add the sources that have been suggested by the good-faith voters below. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - See above, as I am the creator of the article though I am not particularly attached to it. I will say here that sources on the band are indeed slim and restrained to obscure classical and folk publications, but the band is highly regarded in those communities. Per Permastub, a short article is acceptable if the subject is described adequately. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I went to look for examples of a "properly written article" when I received feedback on the article in which I wrote. Upon checking the users submissions I noticed that the same criteria being used to establish notierierty were not being used so I wanted to learn the correct process for dealing with an article of such caliber. I suspect that if I continue to follow this trend I will find 1000s of more examples from other writers. But back on topic, there are no articles that establish notoriety. The Mondozine is an interview and therefore a primary source. Allmusic IS user submitted data, and therefore a primary source, and the Chicago Tribune (my apologies for the error) does not offer significant coverage, it's literally a starred rating with 2 short paragraphs that do not significantly cover the topic. The first paragraph solely makes fun of their name and how hard it is to pronounce while the second paragraph offers a short summary of the instruments they play and the traditional folk songs they play at their events, nothing to support notability. Officialangrydub (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of dropping hints that you are going to whack thousands of articles because $teven Cannon doesn't qualify for one, perhaps you could consider the good faith of others around here and vow to improve such articles in order to make Wikipedia even better for its readers. Also note that notability is not proven or disproven by the sources currently in an article, and you should search for more before condemning the current sources and then claiming that the subject is not notable. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Officialangrydub You seem to be focusing on the wrong things here and I am concerned that you are starting to really push WP:POINT which is against policy. You also mistake notoriety for notability. As I said earlier, and what others have already added, the notability of this article, while not inherent, can be still reasonably established with WP:SINGER criteria for which there are sufficient WP:VERIFY. We all agree that more sources need to be used, but several examples have already been provided by myself and other editors, clearly challenging, if not entirely invalidating, the premise of your AfD nomination. Please read more about the AfD process WP:DISCUSSAFD and how it works. Ppt91 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep for what it's worth, 21 hits in Helsingin Sanomat. These seem to be mostly short articles about the band, its album, and gigs. I agree with above that specialist (print) sources in Finnish need to be consulted to better determine notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Edit 1: There are also at least a few articles exclusively about the band or its album in Uusi kansanmusiikki magazine. The following book is also tagged for the band in the Finnish library system:  – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Edit 2: Changing my vote to keep since the coverage seems to be piling up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep They do seem to be covered in two musical encyclopedias and . Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal request The article has been improved to include more sources WP:RELY verifying WP:SINGER particularly in reference to the band's position as a recognized Finnish folk group and establishing the notability of at least two of its members, sufficient to satisfy criteria 6 and 7. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, specifically "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." I am requesting that @Officialangrydub the nominator withdraw the deletion request and I kindly ask that that the discussion be closed by an administrator. Thank you! Ppt91 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to properly withdraw the request but for the sake of the community I will surely agree to any withdraw. Officialangrydub (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved since taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Officialangrydub (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural Comment - Since the nominator clearly withdrew the nomination after a strong suggestion from another voter, this AfD can possibly be closed by a non-admin, as seen in these instructions: WP:NACD. I thought about doing this myself but it could be seen as a conflict of interest because I created the article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind doing that since this inconvenience was my fault, I'm just confused as to where I place that line of code the protocol instructed to use. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2023 (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.