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. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dayirman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 2-sentence, one ref (to a possible non-RS), article was PRODed. The PROD was removed, w/the edit summary explanation for removal: "per the obvious". I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of band notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quoting Vincenc Kopecek from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ostrava in his paper "World Politics in Dub and Hip-Hop Music: Comparative study of Bosnian Dubioza Kolektiv and Azerbaijani Dayirman": "Both bands belong among the most popular music groups in their home countries and also achieved considerable successes abroad". I will add the citation to the article. jorgenev 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The obvious" was that the article already had a source confirming a pass of WP:MUSIC criterion 7, and notability has been underlined by the further sources now added to the article. I'm very confused by the inconsistency demonstrated by the nominator, who has been nominating many bands with clear notability for deletion, but !voted to keep the very marginal The Maccabeats. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 7 requires RS support establishing that the band has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. No such RS support was supplied. Simply an unreferenced sentence. And the article as a whole lacked any RS ref whatsoever; the only reference was to a non-notable "publication" that lists only one person on its editorial staff. Hopefully, sufficient RS support will be supplied to keep the article. But nothing is "obvious" in an article that is wholly bereft of RS sources.

The article Phil complains about me supporting, in contrast, was determined to be a !keep. By a unanimous !vote. I'm not at all sure why he complains as to a keep !vote, regarding an article that the community unanimously agreed should be kept. That's perhaps slightly odd (as well as wholly tangential to this AFD). It is an article about a band covered by The Huffington and The Wall Street Journal, and mentioned in remarks by Obama that are reflected on the White House website. The article here that Phil felt should obviously be kept was at the time only supported by a lone reference, to what certainly appears to be a non-RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC #7. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.