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. Valid arguments are made for both positions, if we could find a user flent in Korean to look into this it might shed some light on the veracity f their claim to notability... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Urban Stereo

[edit]
Humming Urban Stereo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having performed an AfD search, I did not find sufficient support of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bearian. Some of that is clearly non-RS. And some of it is clearly passing mention (the first, third, fourth, and fifth items in the link you point us to),[1][2][3] or event advertising culled from elsewhere on the internet (the second item in the link you point us to), or non-RS (the fifth item in the link you point us to). Can you perhaps point us to what is RS in the link you provided, and (in that) to what is substantial coverage (rather than passing or trivial mention)? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Billboard article, Billboard itself -- while an RS -- does not say that the statement is true. They simply report it, clearly attributed, as a claim by the social networking site. So Billboard is not an RS for the accuracy of the claim.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
provide evidence then. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Relatively new to article rescue, and seeing the repeated pattern that sources exist, but are either password-protected or foreign language. What is considered reasonable turnaround time for this? Could someone post a link on where to ask for help getting foreign language cites? Trilliumz (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps this will help turn up the needed assistance. Trilliumz (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't. Just means you are willing to look for sources before making a decision. Dream Focus 07:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is !voting delete because of the # of English hits. They are !voting delete because they do not believe that the English hits and non-English hits in RSs combined, when the actual sources are reviewed, demonstrate notability under wp's notability standards. Non-English RS hits "count" -- to the extent that they are substantive and not passing mentions -- the same as English coverage. If what you are suggesting is that a Korean band should require lesser RS coverage (in any language) than, say, an Australian band ... I'm not sure that is the rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was making a general statment only - that it does not make sense to treat equally the google search results of entities based in non-English speaking countries and the google search results of entities based in English speaking countries. The entities based in non-English speaking countries receive coverage that will not be found using English language searches so their search results criteria for "substantial coverage" should be less then compared to an entity based in an English speaking country.
For example, if my position is that an Australian band is notable if a Google search reveals 20 in-depth articles about the band, I can't reasonably take the same position for a Korean band because the Korean band will have more coverage in non-English language sources. In other words, 18 in-depth English-language articles about a Korean band is far more indicitave of notability then 20 in-depth English language articles about an Australian band.--PinkBull 16:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I think the way it works is, or should be, the following. People are free to search using English as well as non-English sources. Often at afd debates on bands, including those on Korean bands (note: this was listed above in Korea-related discussions), non-English sources are both searched and offered as support (sometimes they are RS and count towards notability; sometimes they are non-RS sources and do not). Once the RS sources are "weighed", we have an answer -- irrespective of the language in which the RS source was written. I don't think that we the do (or should) top-up the "count" for non-English-language bands, assuming that we missed some sources that we would otherwise have found. If that is the rule, it should be reflected in the guideline. IMHO, of course. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to clarify -- I don't believe that there is any disagreement that we are allowed to use non-English sources, precisely the same way we use English sources. The debate has, I believe, focused solely on whether the sources that are RS sources (whatever their language) are sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was a disagreement; we needed a link to that policy for future editors. If you want my opinion on the sources, at the very least the Billboard magazine that has been linked to twice qualifies. Although it is part of a write-up on a social networking site, it does clearly state that the band reported 500,000 digital copies sold through the website since 2007. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry -- since you led with that statement, I thought you were implying there was a difference of view on that point. As to the sources, as I've pointed out there seem to be issues with many of them. As to the Billboard article, I note that Billboard itself -- while an RS -- does not say that the statement is true. They simply report it, clearly attributed, as a claim by the social networking site. So Billboard is an RS for the fact that the claim was made, but not for the accuracy of the claim. Furthermore, I note that under the rules of the social networking site in question, "sales" are made of dotori (Korean: 도토리), or "acorns", which can then be used to purchase music--it's not quite your typical "music sales" in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 2 June 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.
More