Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobby (Eurodance 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 no consensus. The current lack of sources appears to be plausibly addressable and there's evidence that the band may meet WP:MUSIC. I'm closing this as no consensus because an outright "keep" close would be too strong given the current WP:V deficiencies. I will tag the article for sources & Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia with the hope that further work will abrogate any need for future deletion discussion. — Scientizzle 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lobby (Eurodance band)

Lobby (Eurodance band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Notability still not asserted. Google search produces just 10 reliable google hits. Roleplayer (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think you have to note that it doesn't appear that they were popular outside of Slovakia. If they did release their albums on a major slovak label that would make them notable. But I don't know anything about Slovakian music. -Drdisque (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Lobby was one of (unfortunately only) 2 best dancefllor bands active in 1990s in Slovakia (2nd was band "D-Night"). It´s known in Slovakia, Czechia, Poland and Mexico. See e.g. Comments at:
    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjoGBPAP8l0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqjfvXQMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTghfKM5sg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsP_hVlu_xU

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addams71 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Band may well be notable, but it doesn't do much good if no one here can find any sources in a language we speak. One of the videos listed above is of a performance in what looks to me to be a TV audience; this suggests to me notability. On the other hand, the view count for all of the videos listed are quite low. Is this another language issue? Possibly. Again, I recognize that the band may well be notable, but if no one here can prove it, it's gotta go. faithless (^speak) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment - Lobby's sk.wikipedia page was created same day by same author, Addams71; but perhaps that's because only now is anyone getting around to adding content on this genre over there? I'm on the fence about foreign artists with no English-language notoriety: on the one hand, I would personally love to see these articles in en.wikipedia, to offset our American/British bias. But on the other hand, perhaps sk.wikipedia (and cz. and pl. and es.wikipedia) is the only proper location, if those are the only languages where we will find any coverage of this group. At some point, en.wikipedia does probably have to ask "notable to whom?"; and as long as the band is covered in sk.wikipedia, the whole wikipedia project would still be doing a good job. Vote withheld for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination unfortunately appears to have systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this article would harm our coverage of Slovakian music. Catchpole (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• The band may well be notable in Slovakia and perhaps even to the world at large but the article offers no proof of this. In fact, it offers no proof of anything at all as there are no sources whatever (YouTube videos are hardly proof of notability.) If appropriate references could be found in English (after all, this is English Wikipedia,) then perhaps it would meet WP:N standards, then it would only need to have extensive cleanup, a rewrite by someone fluent in English, and the insertion of some actual information about the band (as opposed to a couple of dates, the names of the members and a track listing of their albums and nothing else.) If all that were done it might be up to scratch, but for now it doesn't come close. The subject matter might be worth an article, but, at present, I think this treatment is too far from meeting standards to be worth saving; hence: delete. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - finally made up my mind. Leaving notability discussions aside, no third-party proof of the group's existence has been given. Wikipedia needs all articles to have at least some basic sourcing, at least to prove to some future editor that the article is not a hoax. Even some references or footnotes in Slovak would give an editor familiar in the language an opportunity to check sources. I really don't like taking this position when the article was created the same day it was sent to AfD, but the creator has had 7 days to improve the article to beat the rap. Unfortunately, it fails WP:RS and WP:V, so I vote delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. No reliable sources currently verify the notability of this band. Our verifiability policy is quite clear in indicating that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I tried looking myself, coupling the band's names with its albums. (LobbY2K seemed particularly promising as a less common search term.) I didn't come up with anything usable. The sister Slovakian article itself offers two sources; one primary, the other probably usable, but not sufficient unless it verifies that the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Alas, I can't read it. It's very 13th hour, but I'll try to find a Slovakian editor on the English Wikipedia who may be able to help out. I think deletion would be well within guidelines. But I can't personally opine one way or another without trying that, merely to avoid the systemic bias that David Gerard mentions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have asked for translation assistance here. I will update, if the AfD remains open. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—They pass WP:MUSIC criterion #5, as they released two of their albums on Sony's Dance Pool label. I have added that information to the article just now. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The editor I asked to translate kindly did so, and evidently the essence of that source is "It says it produced five albums (although here for example I see only four), and had a tour in Mexico, but in 2001 it had broken up. A former member has also said that Slovak radios stopped playing any dance music at the time of break-up and that they were several times nominated for various awards, but they have won none of them." (All this at the editor's talk page.) This would seem to be a reliable sourcing confirming an international tour. I don't know the notability of the awards. While Discogs is probably not a reliable source, given that they seem to accept any information "voted in", it does suggest that their releases are on a notable label. I can't defend it strongly, but I would believe that it could stand more time and hopefully if brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia may invite participation from editors who can find more and better sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 15 March 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.