Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spalvotas


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Spalvotas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Restored redirect to band - this uncited article has been that way for 5 years, redirect was reverted, and 3 inconsequential references were added, which prove the song exists, but give no indication of notability. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests it passes WP:NMUSIC. In addition, as written it appears to be almost all WP:OR.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect as there's simply nothing here for our policies, the only sources offered are mere listings and this is not what's acceptable, regardless of whatever, because there's no substance, which shows when there's simply the only basic information and list. SwisterTwister   talk  19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought any albums of notable artists became notable anyway?Cexycy (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - No. Per NAlbum: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." Onel 5969  TT me 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The band have produced albums before and after this one so surely I would have thought it would have gained some interest and notability. Just because I can't find any information about it, doesn't mean that it is unnotable.  Instead of working against the article, why not work with it to improve it?  Cexycy (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an article about an album (not a song) by a notable act as they have their own article without any issues.  References have been sort to confirm the information provided and anything which cannot be confirmed can easily be removed.  Further information can be added as and when available, just like any other article.  Cexycy (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Renata (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't really say a lot does it? Cexycy (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Article doesn't establish notability. Sources cited are simply listings and Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability.   CBS 527 Talk 17:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment How come this article is just under nine years old and it's only being contested now? Cexycy (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you are sincere in trying to improve the content of Wikipedia so in that spirit I observed the following:
 * Part of the reason may be that the article was redirect to B'Avarija for 21 months before you, as the article creator, decided to undo the redirect. Secondly the article doesn't get much traffic. From 7/1/2015 - 1/28/2017, the day before the AFD, the article was viewed only 130 times. That's about one view every 4 days.
 * Regardless of the age of the article, it does not meet notability guidelines. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Music databases do not meet the significant coverage requirement.  CBS 527 Talk 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic? I'm not trying to start, I can't really tell because it's in text and no voices are involved.  Just wondering.  I do not get as much time online as I would like to, so I do not notice things too quickly.  As I originally stated the redirect to the band article was unnecessary.  It is also a little rude and it is an abuse of the redirect tool.  As I stated originally, if you have a problem with an article, raise the point directly or nominate it for deletion.  The redirect is really for when an article is known by more than one name or term, you can redirect people who look for the same thing by one of the other terms, just like I did with B'Avar1ja.  Putting that aside, what has the delay of removing the redirect got to do with anything?  I also believed that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is basically for information and unlimited information at that.  Therefore what has the number of times it is viewed got to do with it?  I'm sure there are very obscure articles which get less views but that doesn't mean they should be deleted.  It just means not that many people are interested in the subject or just don't know about it.  It's interesting that you mention music databases not being significant, as they are independent of the artist, Wikipedia and myself.  How much more independent do you want?  I did also added another site as a source.  Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not angry or anything, just stating my side.  Cexycy (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, no, I was not being sarcastic, that was not my intention. You asked the question "How come this article is just under nine years old and it's only being contested now?" and I was suggesting some possible reasons why the article was being contested now. Redirects are also used If a topic is not considered important enough to merit an article on its own. I had nothing to do with the redirects of this article. I was only pointing out that during the time the article was redirected there was no reason for the article to be contested. Similarly, If an article isn't viewed that frequently there is less chance that the article will be improved or contested.Though none of the aforementioned has anything to do with whether the article is notable or not. BTW- I tried to find verifiable sources to establish notability to add to the article but sadly I was unable to find any.  CBS 527 Talk 03:59, 4 February 2017 (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.