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. Consensus is that the topic is notable, but that significant areas of the article in its current state fail WP:V and should be removed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duo Datz[edit]

Duo Datz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, lazy and disruptive nom, as noted here when deprodding the nominator's prod the Hebrew version of the page is plenty of RS, from established sources like Globes and Haaretz, and the page has an "Expand Hebrew" tag on the top of it. So it is not just a lack of WP:BEFORE, but also a case of consciously ignoring sources even when they are right in front of you. Cavarrone 07:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: Your a long established editor who well knows that WP:BLP must be sourced, if they are present in mainspace. The policy is particularly strict on this. There is no policy that states that the presence of an expand tag is a replacement policy for that core BLP policy, that somehow passes WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I added a source even before your reply here. Second, once you knew there were dozens of sources you could have added one yourself, instead of rushing a pointy AfD in bad faith as you obviously knew that sourcing and notability were not a real problem. Or if you had difficulties in adding a ref, you could had asked for help in the talk page. Third, the rationale is totally BS (Fails WP:SIGCOV). Claiming this after you were indicated over a dozen sources a few seconds before (let alone doing a WP:BEFORE) is totally disruptive. A more truthful rationale would had been: A WP:BLP which has plenty of sources available but I'm too lazy to add one from the Hebrew version of the page so I'm starting an AfD, ignoring such sources in the rationale. --Cavarrone 08:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: They're has been a BLP refs tag needed tag since 2019 on the article. Is there a supposed special external clause that means it outside the process? It's well passed its the sell by date. If you weren't an established editor, I would have issued warning notices against you, for distruptive editing. It is enitrely unacceptable behaviour to remove a prod for an article that never been referenced as far I can see, particularly for a WP:BLP. It is not 2007 any longer. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. There was a "more citations" tag, which is not a free pass for deleting pages about notable subjects. The one who is disrupting the project here is you and this AfD speaks for itself. Cavarrone 08:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ref you added isn't in-depth. Its more like clickbait. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Cavarrone 09:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pointiness is bad. Could someone please add the references that appear in the Hebrew article to the English one, preferably including a translation of each title in the trans-title field? While not a reliable source, https://eurosong-contest.fandom.com/wiki/Duo_Datz has some additional information that could be added if you can verify it in a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog and non-rs, per WP:NOT. It is a WP:SPS source. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that we don't use fandom.com pages as references, for the reasons you give. My point is that a fandom.com page may include relevant information that can then be confirmed using a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is confirmation of the singers having appeared in the Eurovision contest and one was on the Masked Singer, but I don't see extensive sourcing for either person. The discussion above supposes there is extensive coverage, but none has been shared that we can review. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, this is not an accurate depiction of the discussion. Both mine and other editor's argument is an not different from yours here, i.e. we pointed at the Hebrew version of the page, which as far as I can see it's a C or B-Class article with 17+ references from established reliable sources, and with coverage spanning from the 1980s to the 2010s. If you want a specific example, this is a featured article which among other things mentions the success of their last album, the criticism and negative reviews they received, the fact that two of their singles entered the hit parade, and which in the lead describes them as "an established phenomenon in the entertainment industry". Side note, besides GNG they pass multiple criteria of WP:BAND (including #9 the mentioned third place at Eurovision, which is the definition of " major music competition"). Cavarrone 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And I don't speak Hebrew so don't feel able to judge the quality of the sources. Can we discuss them here? Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an easy pass of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND. This nomination is a gigantic WP:BEFORE failure. Duo Datz, nicked Datz and Datza, was for 21 years a prominent Israeli music duo, in pop music for adult audiences and children. If nominator had bothered to open the linked article on Hewiki, this AfD disaster should not have happened. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Even worse, this article has also been prodded by the nominator. UNBELIEVABLE!!! gidonb (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and when I deprodded it I specifically advised him to look at the Hewiki page. This is just a bad faith nom, like I haven't seen in years. Cavarrone 00:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the average reader able to look at the Hewiki article and judge from the Hebrew sources that it is a singing duo and that its notable. I don't think so. Obviously, it not a WP:BLP, its covered by WP:MUSICBIO but that is your word, but where is the coverage to tell me that. I thought it was a BLP and reads like one. What is bad is editors who seem to be in the wrong side of history, acting and talking like its 2007 and seemingly not willing to update the article with salient references on an article that wasn't referenced since it was created, or present reference per WP:THREE best practice. So far I've seen a two dead keep !votes with no examination of references, that is not typical of the best practice, merely pointing to another WP as though that constitutes established practice, when it hasn't done since about 2008. If there is WP:SECONDARY sources available, post them up, we can examine them. scope_creep^Talk 11:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be next? You nominating The Beatles for deletion and demanding to come up with WP:THREE? You had bettered your behavior just slightly for a while, now are clearly sliding again with what you allow yourself at AfDs and demands that you make of other people! The previous AfD I saw from your end was a self-confessed WP:POINT. If you do not submit serious AfDs, you should not expect the debate to rise to high levels. It's a direct consequence of your behavior. People (any, not this one or another) are just going to say: Nah, that aint right! gidonb (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a few messages above I linked a feature article from Kol Ha'ir and also summarized its contents. About the rest, it's an Israeli musical duo so it's normal that sources are in Hebrew, but with translators even "the average reader" can access to them; if you are unable to check such references before and during an AfD probably you don't have the necessary competence. And there are no "dead keep !votes with no examination of references" here, as every keep vote is actually based on references (I made a WP:BAND call as they clearly meet it, but it is really an ancillary point in such a case). How ironical talking of "best practice" when you ignored WP:BEFORE, ignored (and still ignore) the hewiki sources when pointed at them minutes before the AfD, ignored WP:MUSICBIO and rushed an AfD with a vague rationale which ignored all the points above. All this a few months after receiving an indefinite block (your second one), for a quite similar case of AfD disruption. Cavarrone 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. When I saw the PROD placed on this article, I thought it was a good idea given the lack of sources for many years and the fact that it appeared the artists were likely more notable standalone when compared to a duo. This article was created as a Eurovision-focused stub by fans (as were all of the other language versions except Hebrew) so I understand how their entire career has been minimalized on Wikipedia. It sounds like they might have had some sort of notable career within Israel and that's fine, but as others have pointed out, we cannot just keep an unsourced stub article with a banner begging folks to look to the Hebrew wiki to expand. Someone's got to do that, especially since "we've" been patiently waiting over four years for it. We still don't even know if the sources on the Hebrew wiki are reliable or if the information there is even notable or relevent. My !vote is delete this if it cannot be sufficiently expanded with reliable sources to establish its notability. If as part of this AfD someone wants to show that the article does have a realistic future with a reasonable amount of work, then of course I'd be open to keeping it. If kept, I would highly support merging Orna Datz to it given that her notability appears to be solely as part of the group. Grk1011 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I will work on translating the article from Hebrew to English so that it has information to add to what is currently there.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: thanks for expanding the article! This is pushing me towards 'keep' somewhat, but also remember that one of the issues remains a lack of reliable sources. There is a bit more to do than just translating the article. Many paragraphs remain without any evidence of where the information came from. Grk1011 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I am wondering how the Hebrew article can have such detail with a lack of sources. Is there a way past this? Do we delete the unsourced parts?

Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment 75% of the article is unsourced. I've just went through the process to delete an editors article, who was warring to keep a BLP that was mostly unsourced as well, just yesterday. This is similar to that condition. Its junk. We will examine the sources today. Its a good attempt though. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As pointed out before, this nomination was opened and is being kept open under false pretenses, is disruptive, and is in stark comtempt of policies, guidelines, and essays such as WP:NEXIST and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact that nominator is allowed to increase his levels of disruption again in the AfD sphere will chase away good editors from our community project. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one is indeed an easy pass of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND. established sources. Article looks ok now after major improvements after nominatiom.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its pretty decent attempt at the WP:HEYMANN standard, although there is several sections that are unsourced and will need to go. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 28 August 2023 (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.