- 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. no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
V.O.S
- V.O.S ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded and deprodded on BLP technicalities (Ping User:Discospinster, User:Calathan), time to look into a more important issue - notability. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music groups) requirement. Ping User:OnestarLim for a review of Korean references. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not seeing sufficient information to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. SNUGGUMS ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - there's plenty of information, it just is information typical of all Korean pop music articles - blogs, htm, rubbish. Someone has to wade through it all to find a few crumbs which pass western music WP:RS standards. a Best Of album doesn't prove notability but is a pointer. A secondary problem with this article is the aggressively ambiguous title. There are so many much other things at VOS dab, why should this article be getting in the way of them in autofill contrary to WP:DIFFPUNCT? I attempted to move it because of WP:DIFFPUNCT but was reverted. Note WP:DIFFPUNCT Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases. If it survives AfD it really shouldn't be clogging up the VOS dab in this manner. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, In ictu oculi and I were in disagreement about the title of the article before it was brought to AFD. Since he is making his case with the name here, I just want to point out here that I disagree with him on the name. The current name is fully in compliance with WP:DIFFPUNCT, as there isn't a primary topic that this should redirect to, and the hatnote allows someone to find the right page if they accidentally wind up at this band's article. No one typing VOS without periods will accidentally end up at this article when they wanted something else, since that goes to the disambiguation page. While someone might end up at this article if they wanted something else and typed V.O.S, or might end up at the disambiguation page if they wanted this article, the hatnote and disambiguation page allow people to reach the right article. That is exactly how WP:DIFFPUNCT says a situation like this should be handled. Calathan ( talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:09, 16 July 2014 (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.
- 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. no prejudice against speedy renomination ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
V.O.S
- V.O.S ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded and deprodded on BLP technicalities (Ping User:Discospinster, User:Calathan), time to look into a more important issue - notability. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music groups) requirement. Ping User:OnestarLim for a review of Korean references. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not seeing sufficient information to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. SNUGGUMS ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - there's plenty of information, it just is information typical of all Korean pop music articles - blogs, htm, rubbish. Someone has to wade through it all to find a few crumbs which pass western music WP:RS standards. a Best Of album doesn't prove notability but is a pointer. A secondary problem with this article is the aggressively ambiguous title. There are so many much other things at VOS dab, why should this article be getting in the way of them in autofill contrary to WP:DIFFPUNCT? I attempted to move it because of WP:DIFFPUNCT but was reverted. Note WP:DIFFPUNCT Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases. If it survives AfD it really shouldn't be clogging up the VOS dab in this manner. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, In ictu oculi and I were in disagreement about the title of the article before it was brought to AFD. Since he is making his case with the name here, I just want to point out here that I disagree with him on the name. The current name is fully in compliance with WP:DIFFPUNCT, as there isn't a primary topic that this should redirect to, and the hatnote allows someone to find the right page if they accidentally wind up at this band's article. No one typing VOS without periods will accidentally end up at this article when they wanted something else, since that goes to the disambiguation page. While someone might end up at this article if they wanted something else and typed V.O.S, or might end up at the disambiguation page if they wanted this article, the hatnote and disambiguation page allow people to reach the right article. That is exactly how WP:DIFFPUNCT says a situation like this should be handled. Calathan ( talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:09, 16 July 2014 (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.