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. Tone 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messed Up[edit]

Messed Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article has 19 sources, but I see exactly one reliable one among them (taz.de). Is this good enough? Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: What makes Cafébabel, Messed!Up, Street Beat Records, minutenmusik, TRVE LOVE, and Chaos w mojej głowie unreliable sources? What makes taz.de more reliable than them? The primary sources are only used to confirm basic details and self-proclaimed statements about the band, so their use is acceptable. The Facebook events are clear confirmation of gigs, including some major ones. What kind of "reliability" are you expecting from an article about a politicised punk band on an independent label? It's not like The Wall Street Journal are gonna be writing about them... The amount of attention they're already getting in German online media, for example, is already amazing considering how small this band is. They are most likely the only all-female band in Belarus and also likely the second ever Belarusian band signed to a German record label. If you have a problem with some of the sources (which you did not explain at all), perhaps try to find ones more to your liking instead of just lazily nominating the whole article for deletion? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the user, who is the creator of the article, has canvassed users to come here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to come and share their opinion, especially to show support IF they agree with the defence. You have yet to provide any kind of serious justification as to how the other sources listed are "unreliable". I guess I could also be rude and say: "the user above has not provided a proper rationale for the nomination", but I prefer to address others directly when I am speaking/writing to them as it is common decency... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the user, who nominated the article for deletion, has yet to provide an actual explanation. He may also better acquaint himself with Wikipedia guidelines, as "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". The users who have been asked to share their views here were asked to do so if they agree with the arguments for keeping the article - if they disagree or are not convinced either way, they are completely free to support the deletion of the article or simply not comment here at all. No one is controlling them. Mr. Blanter might also wish to familiarise himself with proper etiquette. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for teaching me the Wikipedia policies. It is particularly refreshing to get this lesson from a user who has made 2000 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome and thank you for finally responding to me directly. I'm sure you're completely missing the irony of a middle-aged male professor born in Soviet Russia trying to get an article about young Belarusian feminist punks deleted from Wikipedia. And since you have still not provided any reasonable explanation for this, I think it's safe to assume your desire to delete the article is motivated by ideology or maybe some personal vendetta against dissident Belarusians or Poles? Who knows, but it looks like you're trying to hide your real POV (see this for reference) behind a weak rationale involving zero explanation. It is also entertaining to see that you too have "canvassed" another user to join this discussion, only using a template to feign neutrality when the choice of the person you reached out to is obviously not random or neutral neither could it ever fully be when it comes to notifying individuals. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you would need to read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and stop providing your opinion about my motivations, which I am, to be honest, not interested in. Concerning my notification of the user, it is done by automatic tools which I used to nominate the article for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually provided an explanation and illustrated how all the other non-primary sources used are unreliable, then there would be no need to make any assumptions whatsoever. Instead, you chose to act smart and "flex" about your status on Wikipedia while being condescending to someone who simply chooses to spend less of their time on this website than you do. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fundamentally, the question here is whether there's a second reliable source (as Die Tageszeitung is unquestionably the first). I think that answer is probably yes. Cafébabel is a distinctly weird publication, based on the concept of participatory journalism; however, it doesn't appear to be "user-generated content" in the way that normally excludes sites from satisfying WP:RS. It has a stated editorial policy, and includes editorial oversight both in terms of article topic selection and traditional prose editing; additionally, it is published by a recognized nonprofit that partners with Europe for Citizens. We've certainly accepted far more marginal sources as reliable elsewhere. And there's no question that the article in question offers a significant treatment of the subject. Now, some of the other sources? Probably not as good. But that's not a deletion rationale. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see an indication of notability in the sources present. Ss112 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There were several reliable sources in the first version of the article, but many of those used were also unreliable or not accepted on Wikipedia - though the initial statement when the page was nominated for deletion was a gross exaggeration and clearly not a deletion rationale, as pointed out above. However, since then all the unnecessary less reliable sources have been removed and plenty of much more reliable ones (including articles from very well-known news media outlets) have been added. If there was any rational and non-POV-motivated argument for deleting the article to begin with (which, as illustrated, there was not), there most certainly would not be one now. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:: According to Wikipedia guidelines, the discussion for an article nominated for deletion should run for a full week (168 hours). This time has passed, so I was wondering when will we see the outcome of this? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2019 (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.