Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orxata Sound System

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. Daniel 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orxata Sound System

Orxata Sound System (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Admin removed prod with the words "not applicable". Since there are no third-party sources, nor indeed, i believe, any assertion of notability, i think it is applicable. so here we are. tomasz. 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:CSD is not applicable here, because there are a lot of trivial links relate to this band. Carlosguitar 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, yes, there are links (three, and none of them third-party), but there's still no assertion of notability, which i think makes CSD:A7 applicable. tomasz. 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• A7 is not used when is not possible to find reliable sources. We need consensus via AfD to delete these types of articles. Carlosguitar 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's incorrect. The A7 criterion specifically says:

  "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources."

  Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• A non-notable article (WP:MUSIC) is not an article without assertion (A7). We cannot use A7 here because of trivia sources found via Google. [1] If the article is controversial is better to nominate for deletion not using speedy criteria. Carlosguitar 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it that were the case then no articles about music groups would ever be speedily deleted. Again, to quote A7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, etc. "Band" refers to music band, obviously, so CSD A7 is specifically designed to include bands and groups. CSD A7 is related to the content of the article, not how many Google hits the subject gets. There is no assertion of importance in this article, so it is technically A7. It's slightly worrying that you, being an admin, don't fully understand the speedy deleteion criteria. Crazysuit 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:GHITS is not the argument to keep nor to delete. I never said that this band is notable, what I am saying is the WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable here, that is a lot different. CSD should be used on a case-by-case basis and that is what I am doing. It is slightly worrying if an admin delete a unreferenced article (A7) created by a newcomer when the sources may be found using Google. I am sorry, but no A7 is not applicable here. Carlosguitar 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• (reset indent) This might be down to a misunderstanding of the way you used "not applicable" regarding A7 here. I had the impression you were saying that tomasz was incorrect for tagging this as A7, so I defended tomasz's (correct) use of the A7 tag. But now I think you just meant that you were removing the tag because you believed this band are potentially notable, which is different. I agree that an article tagged as A7 shouldn't be speedily deleted if it might be notable, but my point was that anyone who tags an article with no assertion of importance as A7 is correct in doing so (though that doesn't necessarily mean that article article must be deleted). Crazysuit 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I understand if tomasz did a poor search and believed that Orxata Sound System has "no importance". On the contrary it is far away to be delete by speedy criterion and A7 is used incorrectly to say that this article is non-notable and unverifiable. Anyone? Never! The trivial citation from independent sources that I posted above, cut out any argument that this band is has "no importance". Carlosguitar 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - the article is very new, and has never been tagged as unreferenced (I've now done so). We should give it an opportunity to have references added. I don't read Spanish, so I cannot evaluate the results, but a search through the Gnews archives show that they have been at least mentioned in newspapers so there is some possibility to find sources to support notability for the band. -- Whpq 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Along similar lines to Whpq, I think we need to be careful about the language bias here. Most of the possible references are not in English. Bondegezou 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy. It is for those seeking the article kept to provide sources. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Stifle. It's been over two weeks now since the article was tagged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle and Moonriddengirl. Keeper | 76 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable groupMbisanz 02:33, 15 November 2007 (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.