Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuvalu (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 Keep. JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuvalu (band)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seemingly non-notable band. Creator declined prod on the basis that they have multiple, non-trivial media references. These are yet to be found.  tomasz.  14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just because you don't know a band doesn't mean it isn't known somehere else. (And I'm not the creator of the article.) Deletionists for the win and so on... FYI, Tuvalu's records have been reviewed in many major Finnish print magazines, but as you don't know them so there's probably no point for me to try to defend my position. Reading your userpage, you have been called "trigger happy" before, maybe you should take that criticism to heart.--Wormsie (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, i have indeed been called "trigger happy", by people who've made articles on non-notable bands that have failed WP guidelines and subsequently deleted after other users agreed. If that makes me "trigger-happy", i'm glad to accept the label. Incidentally, "this band is notable but i can't be bothered explaining why because i don't like your stance" is not a particularly convincing argument for "your position", if you indeed do have one. WP:AGF is in no way applicable. Oh and the band will still need legitimate sources to substantiate why they are notable. Cheers,  tomasz.  18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know WHAT should be written about the band - they have played live gigs, released two albums that have been reviewed by major (print) music magazines and newspapers in Finland. What else is there to ask?--Wormsie (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: It's tough to find much information about the band, seeing as all the information's in Finnish. Even though it's a bit tough to locate additional information, I think it's worth keeping the page up so that as new information is found, it could be added to the article so there's actually a place for the information on Tuvalu in English. (also, is there a more convenient way to add replies in these talk pages? - i just edited the page directly) --coder11235 14:41, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 * Delete or Transwiki to Finnish Wikipedia I was going to try to put the band up against WP:MUSIC, but I can't. All the references are in Finnish. I don't speak Finnish. This is the English Wikipedia. Without English references, I cannot support keeping this article here. DarkAudit (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your personal inability to understand the references has no bearing on the notability or verifiability of the article. I have difficulty understand many references given for articles about mathematics, even though I have studied the subject at undergraduate level, but that doesn't mean that I demand their deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply If one cannot verify the sources, then the sources are useless. To the majority of users of the English Wikipedia, these sources are not verifiable because they are not in a language they can read. There are no translations provided, so for the English Wikipedia, these are not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. English-language sources woould be brilliant, but this being the real world we can't always get what we want. As a result, I'm prepared to accept on faith that the Finnish sources say what they're claimed to. That said, there aren't a great many independent sources, so I'd suggest that more of these would be helpful. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes verifiability policy and notability guidelines with multiple references from reliable sources. Policy is explicit that sources do not have to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy also expects that there are translations made available for readers who do not speak the original language to be able to verify the sources. That is not the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note the phrase "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" -- if this case does not qualify, I don't know what does. The article is an absolute mess, though. Someone needs to translate that babble into proper English. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. Policy (WP:RSUE and WP:BIAS) is very clear that references not in English are valid (although finding some English language references or providing a translating would be valuable too). I highly recommend editors read or re-read WP:BIAS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Bondegezou. The mind boggles as to how many articles would be deleted from WP simply because of non-English reliable sources being used. --Russavia (talk) 20:45, 31 January 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.