Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volha Satsiuk


 * 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. Nja 247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Volha Satsiuk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. nothing on google news and google search is mainly mirror and directory listings for appearing in Junior Eurovision. so WP:ONEVENT also applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She has done more than one event. There is information available if you search in Russian. She's been recognized by newspapers (as quoted in the sources), and appeareed on TV numerous times. She has done music commercially, as she has relesed at least one music video (as shown by simple Youtube searches). Placed high in competitions. Clearly notable according to WP:MUSIC! Moorvis (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Moorvis claims there is notability and I'll AGF, but I don't see it. Yes, I know that non-English sources are valid, but the whole "search in Finnish/Russian/Czech/whatever" idea always annoys me. This is the English WP, not the Russian one. I can't WP:V a source that I can't read. So while notability may be there, if it the notable coverage is in a language I can't read, I can't verify it, so it fails WP:V for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. But the correct solution would be to add the citations, not deleting. By deleting all the current work gets lost and that if something would discourage editors to improve articles. I don't just have time to do it properly at the moment (I don't know russian either), but it seems clear to me that she is nationally notable. Being English Wikipedia means that the articles are in English, not that the persons have to be notable in the English-speaking world. Moorvis (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of verifiability isn't that every reader should be able to understand every source used. I probably wouldn't understand the sources used in "polymerase chain reaction" or "exogenous growth model" but that doesn't mean that the sources are not verifiable, just that it needs some expertise in the field to verify them. I happen to have a reasonable understanding of Russian, so, for me, Russian sources about a non-technical subject are more verifiable than English sources about technical subjects in areas where I have no expertise. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it presents things in a manner, whether a language or a register, that is more understandable to the readers than its sources. If we were to limit ourselves to sources that everyone can understand then this would be a very dumbed-down encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've added a reference to a source that confirms the main claim to fame, but I don't see that that's enough for notability, and looking through the sources found by a search in the cyrillic alphabet I can't see anything beyond passing mentions. I can't claim to have a great knowledge of Belarusian language (despite having spent a month on a language course in Minsk in 1978), but from my knowledge of related languages I can make enough sense of those sources to see that they don't provide substantial coverage of the subject. I would encourage Moorvis to identify any print sources that contradict this argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 8 July 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.