Everything Is Made in China – List at AfD. There's reasonably good consensus here that while the article has serious problems, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:A7 because it makes assertions of notability, i.e. claims of released albums. The issues being debated here are better debated at AfD, so (as suggested), I'm going to list this at AfD. SmokeyJoe makes an interesting suggestion that the existence of stable versions on other language wikipedias should be enough to ward off WP:A7 attacks; while I tend to agree with that sentiment, there's no policy to back it up. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Everything Is Made in China (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Disagree about lack of notability. The band has Russian, Polish, and German articles. I think that: a) being listed on Spotify; b) having released three albums; c) being active since 2007; d) being known by people outside Russia; e) having been named as "one of the most promising post-rocks bands" by the Russian edition of Rolling Stone [1]; qualifies the band for notability. Some references in addition to the aforementioned Wikipedia articles: [2] [3]. I wrote on Bbb23 page to no fruition. Also, I can't see the text of the page as it was on 2013, but if the article mentioned the Russian's Rolling Store quote, that automatically disqualifies it for speedy deletion. My mistake for not adding that quote back when I re-created the page. rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Having reviewed the deleted content, whilst short, the article claimed that the band has released three albums. This is a sufficient claim of significance to defeat a speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] The album mentions are enough to have mandated a full afd, yes. I have plenty of sympathy with the deleting admin's rationale here, though, and all the "buy this album" external links (from both deleted versions) would have had me twitching towards my G11 button. —Cryptic 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well, my version didn't have a "Buy this album" direct link. It had an external link to the official band homepage (which it actually happens to have a "Buy this album" text/sublink --don't most of band homepages have links for buying their albums? isn't that normal, or even expected? I figure writer's homepages, have links to buy their books, app maker homepages' have link to download their apps, etc.--). It also had a link to the band's Bandcamp, where you can listen to their full three albums for free. rsanchezsaez (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] A link or two to the band's official page in the External links section is fine. Inline external links from half the albums and singles to commercial, nearly-contentless pages like http://soundcloud.com/eimicband/sets/album-4/ fail WP:ELNO so badly that I hope you can see how my first impression of the article was "spam". Easy enough to remove them, though, and I am advocating for the article to be restored. —Cryptic 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I don't care much if the article is restored, but I do have a few comments. Per WP:BAND, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed, at least not on its face. If a band article is not deletable per A7 simply because it's released some albums, no matter what label, or how those albums were produced, then so be it, but I find that's a bit much myself. For example, is an actor article deletable if the actor has appeared in three different TV shows or movies, no matter what the show or movie or what the part? In addition, I was also influenced by a prod of the article in 2013 based on notability, and it was deleted after the prod expired. The article at that point was actually in better shape than the current iteration of the article and yet was gone. All that said, if the community believes the article should be restored, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment I do not know about bands, but for authors, we treat the assertion that an author has published a book by a reputable publisher as sufficient to pass A7 -- though of course not necessarily sufficient for notability. But we do not consider that he passes A7 if it is a self-published book, or even several self-published books, unless there is some indication of significance for them. I do not know what the publication details of these albums may be, but I suspect that self-publishing is rather common for beginning musicians,and is not unknown even for the established. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse WP:BAND or not, the A7 was appropriate. Claiming they had "released" albums is not a credible claim to importance, since anyone can "release" albums on SoundCloud. An asserted association with a notable record company would perhaps be grounds to decline the speedy or overturn it, but that was not the case here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn looking at the Russian article, I very much doubt this will make it past AfD. But there is a claim of significance IMO. I realize that this is debatable, but I prefer to have this "claim" be a very low bar. Otherwise we'll speedy things that actually have a shot at our notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment - is there a claim to notability? Yeah, but a pretty pathetic one. Will this make it past AFD? Unlikely. Proponents should spend more time collecting instances of significant coverage in reliable sources rather than wasting time on the most technical of technical overturn efforts only to be shot down at AFD. Like arguing your tyres have just enough tread to be roadworthy while ignoring the fact that your car still doesn't have an engine, doors or a steering wheel. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] My Russian is decent, but not good enough to find sources and identify them as RS. Rolling Stone one sounds possible though. That said, part of the point here is that we shouldn't be speedy deleting things that have a claim to notability. The speedy is there for clear-cut cases. This isn't one. And that's an important thing. It feels like a claim that cops shouldn't enforce the speed limit because there are more important crimes out there... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] And to be clear, my suggestion isn't that we shouldn't (technically) be overturning it, just that it would be pointless (from a bureaucratic and functional standpoint) to do so. If an admin wants to undelete this, have it sent to AFD and then delete it again in 7 days, I won't object. But I question whether that is helpful to the proponents. To strain an already strained metaphor further - letting someone off their speeding fine, only to fine them later for dangerous driving. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Bureaucratic and functionally may be worthless, but sometimes you have to do the "right" thing even if seemingly worthless. IMO, unfair speedy deletions turn off possible Wikipedia contributors. If my driving license has expired please do tell me about it, but don't wrongly fine me for speeding. :-) -rsanchezsaez (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but we would be overturning a speedy deletion just to give a bunch of people the chance to kick the excrement out of your work over the course of 7 days before it is deleted again, in effect punishing you twice. If you're a glutton for it, so be it. Just seems cruel and unnecessary to me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] List at AfD. Suggest that articles with stable versions in other languages should not be subject to WP:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I doubt that's a useful standard to follow, looking at the three here 1 has a notice suggesting that it needs references to sources, the other 2 have no such notice but no references. References to non-RS is never a good argument and we certainly know this project, let alone other wikipedia projects, are certainly not RS. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Wikimedia Foundation vision statement. Yet, editors keep enforcing petty rules and regulations about lack of notability. I maintain that this band is notable (and that the spam accusations are ludicrous). How Wikipedia rules allow that a Russian band with 5000 likes on FB [4], three albums on Spotify and that has played internationally (e.g., 2014 Waves Vienna Music Festival) is beyond me. I bet that this band will get a valid Wikipedia article sooner or later. I'll just wait for it. You guys can keep "cleaning" wikipedia so it conforms to your notability standards. -rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Everything Is Made in China – List at AfD. There's reasonably good consensus here that while the article has serious problems, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:A7 because it makes assertions of notability, i.e. claims of released albums. The issues being debated here are better debated at AfD, so (as suggested), I'm going to list this at AfD. SmokeyJoe makes an interesting suggestion that the existence of stable versions on other language wikipedias should be enough to ward off WP:A7 attacks; while I tend to agree with that sentiment, there's no policy to back it up. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Disagree about lack of notability.

The band has Russian, Polish, and German articles.

I think that: a) being listed on Spotify; b) having released three albums; c) being active since 2007; d) being known by people outside Russia; e) having been named as "one of the most promising post-rocks bands" by the Russian edition of Rolling Stone [1]; qualifies the band for notability.

Some references in addition to the aforementioned Wikipedia articles: [2] [3]. I wrote on Bbb23 page to no fruition. Also, I can't see the text of the page as it was on 2013, but if the article mentioned the Russian's Rolling Store quote, that automatically disqualifies it for speedy deletion. My mistake for not adding that quote back when I re-created the page.

rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Having reviewed the deleted content, whilst short, the article claimed that the band has released three albums. This is a sufficient claim of significance to defeat a speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The album mentions are enough to have mandated a full afd, yes. I have plenty of sympathy with the deleting admin's rationale here, though, and all the "buy this album" external links (from both deleted versions) would have had me twitching towards my G11 button. —Cryptic 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my version didn't have a "Buy this album" direct link. It had an external link to the official band homepage (which it actually happens to have a "Buy this album" text/sublink --don't most of band homepages have links for buying their albums? isn't that normal, or even expected? I figure writer's homepages, have links to buy their books, app maker homepages' have link to download their apps, etc.--). It also had a link to the band's Bandcamp, where you can listen to their full three albums for free. rsanchezsaez (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link or two to the band's official page in the External links section is fine. Inline external links from half the albums and singles to commercial, nearly-contentless pages like http://soundcloud.com/eimicband/sets/album-4/ fail WP:ELNO so badly that I hope you can see how my first impression of the article was "spam". Easy enough to remove them, though, and I am advocating for the article to be restored. —Cryptic 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much if the article is restored, but I do have a few comments. Per WP:BAND, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed, at least not on its face. If a band article is not deletable per A7 simply because it's released some albums, no matter what label, or how those albums were produced, then so be it, but I find that's a bit much myself. For example, is an actor article deletable if the actor has appeared in three different TV shows or movies, no matter what the show or movie or what the part? In addition, I was also influenced by a prod of the article in 2013 based on notability, and it was deleted after the prod expired. The article at that point was actually in better shape than the current iteration of the article and yet was gone. All that said, if the community believes the article should be restored, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not know about bands, but for authors, we treat the assertion that an author has published a book by a reputable publisher as sufficient to pass A7 -- though of course not necessarily sufficient for notability. But we do not consider that he passes A7 if it is a self-published book, or even several self-published books, unless there is some indication of significance for them. I do not know what the publication details of these albums may be, but I suspect that self-publishing is rather common for beginning musicians,and is not unknown even for the established. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:BAND or not, the A7 was appropriate. Claiming they had "released" albums is not a credible claim to importance, since anyone can "release" albums on SoundCloud. An asserted association with a notable record company would perhaps be grounds to decline the speedy or overturn it, but that was not the case here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn looking at the Russian article, I very much doubt this will make it past AfD. But there is a claim of significance IMO. I realize that this is debatable, but I prefer to have this "claim" be a very low bar. Otherwise we'll speedy things that actually have a shot at our notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there a claim to notability? Yeah, but a pretty pathetic one. Will this make it past AFD? Unlikely. Proponents should spend more time collecting instances of significant coverage in reliable sources rather than wasting time on the most technical of technical overturn efforts only to be shot down at AFD. Like arguing your tyres have just enough tread to be roadworthy while ignoring the fact that your car still doesn't have an engine, doors or a steering wheel. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Russian is decent, but not good enough to find sources and identify them as RS. Rolling Stone one sounds possible though. That said, part of the point here is that we shouldn't be speedy deleting things that have a claim to notability. The speedy is there for clear-cut cases. This isn't one. And that's an important thing. It feels like a claim that cops shouldn't enforce the speed limit because there are more important crimes out there... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, my suggestion isn't that we shouldn't (technically) be overturning it, just that it would be pointless (from a bureaucratic and functional standpoint) to do so. If an admin wants to undelete this, have it sent to AFD and then delete it again in 7 days, I won't object. But I question whether that is helpful to the proponents. To strain an already strained metaphor further - letting someone off their speeding fine, only to fine them later for dangerous driving. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratic and functionally may be worthless, but sometimes you have to do the "right" thing even if seemingly worthless. IMO, unfair speedy deletions turn off possible Wikipedia contributors. If my driving license has expired please do tell me about it, but don't wrongly fine me for speeding. :-) -rsanchezsaez (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we would be overturning a speedy deletion just to give a bunch of people the chance to kick the excrement out of your work over the course of 7 days before it is deleted again, in effect punishing you twice. If you're a glutton for it, so be it. Just seems cruel and unnecessary to me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List at AfD. Suggest that articles with stable versions in other languages should not be subject to WP:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that's a useful standard to follow, looking at the three here 1 has a notice suggesting that it needs references to sources, the other 2 have no such notice but no references. References to non-RS is never a good argument and we certainly know this project, let alone other wikipedia projects, are certainly not RS. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Wikimedia Foundation vision statement. Yet, editors keep enforcing petty rules and regulations about lack of notability. I maintain that this band is notable (and that the spam accusations are ludicrous). How Wikipedia rules allow that a Russian band with 5000 likes on FB [4], three albums on Spotify and that has played internationally (e.g., 2014 Waves Vienna Music Festival) is beyond me. I bet that this band will get a valid Wikipedia article sooner or later. I'll just wait for it. You guys can keep "cleaning" wikipedia so it conforms to your notability standards. -rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Qaster – Deletion endorsed – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Qaster (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaster The first edit in March was deleted because it lacked notability After several months, Qaster has earned Wikipedia:Notability according to the standards of Wikipedia's policy. (Many neutral references) Qaster's article was deleted again because the contents were too similar to the version from March If the reason for deletion in March was "lack of notability", then a new Qaster article should be judged by the improvement in this "notability" area in November, not by "similarity". --거북이 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Can you please cite some of those claimed neutral references? Stifle (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, textbook G4. The "new" article used identical wording to various pre-afd versions, even the same incorrect punctuation; and had zero references, not "many neutral" ones. WP:BURDEN. I don't get how 25 October 2014 to 19 November 2014 is "several months", either. —Cryptic 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse for same reason as above. All of the references seem to be of the "new product has launched" type, or "company xxx has invested $yyy in up-and-coming product zzz". (Disclaimer: I deleted the most recent version (with absolutely no links), and translated a couple of sources with Google Translate.) Bjelleklang - talk 14:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Usr:Cryptic as a completely correct application of CSD G4. The two versions of the article were not just "similar", even the odd punctuation is identical across both versions, which is a bit of a giveaway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply] Endorse. I can't see an obvious problem. The nomination is unconvincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Qaster – Deletion endorsed – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaster

The first edit in March was deleted because it lacked notability
After several months, Qaster has earned Wikipedia:Notability according to the standards of Wikipedia's policy. (Many neutral references)
Qaster's article was deleted again because the contents were too similar to the version from March
If the reason for deletion in March was "lack of notability", then a new Qaster article should be judged by the improvement in this "notability" area in November, not by "similarity". --거북이 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite some of those claimed neutral references? Stifle (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, textbook G4. The "new" article used identical wording to various pre-afd versions, even the same incorrect punctuation; and had zero references, not "many neutral" ones. WP:BURDEN. I don't get how 25 October 2014 to 19 November 2014 is "several months", either. —Cryptic 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for same reason as above. All of the references seem to be of the "new product has launched" type, or "company xxx has invested $yyy in up-and-coming product zzz". (Disclaimer: I deleted the most recent version (with absolutely no links), and translated a couple of sources with Google Translate.) Bjelleklang - talk 14:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Usr:Cryptic as a completely correct application of CSD G4. The two versions of the article were not just "similar", even the odd punctuation is identical across both versions, which is a bit of a giveaway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. I can't see an obvious problem. The nomination is unconvincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.