Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mpiri

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mpiri

"Prod" is no prize shooting. But AfD is a discussion that can go either way. Is this local choir notable? It looks like a vanity page. Their source is their own website. Stijndon (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons above. Stijndon (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I've opposed Stijndon's three previous attempts to get this article deleted. Although the sources aren't in the article at present, and I don't speak Faroese so aren't going to even try to add them, ten seconds on the search engine of your choice shows that this is a significant ensemble (not the Myspace pop groups {{db-band}} is aimed at). Given the low number of bands in the Faroes, and the fact that it can be confirmed that they've completed international tours, I am happy to invoke WP:COMMON and assume that the coverage will exist in the Faroese-language press. – iride scent 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Question of Protocol, and please let me know if I've missed the subheader/section/paragraph somewhere, but since you nominated this article for deletion, isn't it assumed you want it deleted and therefore, you don't need to comment for its deletion? Also, I'm unsure about this one; is there a Faeroe expert around?Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry about apparently voting twice, I thought that a nomination had to be paired with your own vote. I remember having seen AfD's where the first vote would be motivated with "as per being the nominator." I guess I'll read up on it, too. Stijndon (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there's some recommendation somewhere that says you're supposed to add your !vote on the deletion debate as the first !vote. Not everyone does, particularly because if you do that, everyone will be confused by that in AfD debates (your comment is yet another fine example =) Most people just provide their rationale in the nomination text and don't bother with the rule. It's yet another of those protocol issues that are there just to confuse people and no one dared to change it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment These are the Wikipedians who speak Faroese. Not sure how the WP:CANVASS police would feel about it (they potentially have an inherent bias to keep an article on something from their hometown), but it might be worth asking if any of them can check sources. – iride scent 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to be smart about it, but it says in the article itself that the choir is based in Copenhagen - basically, any Dane will do. No need for a specific Faroer. Stijndon (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This search doesn't prove their notability but they appear reasonably known as a choir group from Denmark. I can't read Danish but they clearly are verifiable. Ravenmasterq is right The nominator, Stijndon, has now voted twice to delete this article...which is ethically wrong in my view. Artene50 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of that aforementioned verifiability can be translated into notability. da.wp does not have an article. WP:MUSIC is pretty lax so I may be wrong here, but nothing on the groups news page (English version) appears to cinch a keep. They note that a concert was mentioned in a local Swedish newspaper and that the conductor received a Nordic Councils Music Prize. I am really pretty close to the fence on this one, so certainly no prejudice to recreation if they get some significant news coverage or win an award or whatever. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am pretty sure that there is no ethical lapse in stating explicitly that this was not a purely procedural nomination. There was no attempt to deceive an unwary reader. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (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.