Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.A.D (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. JERRY talk contribs 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.A.D

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/B.A.D Articles for deletion/B.A.D (2nd nomination)
B.A.D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fixing 2nd nomination per request left on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Here is my information. For one, the site given on the B.A.D page is defunct. Also, the source sited during the first AfD nomination is only a music buying site. It is a German online music store. It as NO reviews of the band, it only has their cd's. It's just like going to the metal encyclopedia and saying that all of those bands are notable because they have an album for sale. All music guide doesn't even know of B.A.D. (note that it is B.A.D. not B.A.D) I have searched Google for B.A.D. ,B.A.D. taiwanese boy band, and taiwanese boy bands and nothing containing B.A.D. ever comes up. The only boy bands from Taiwan that come up are Farenheit(spelling?), and F4. B.A.D. has no site, they have no revies, and that one site brought up in the first debate is just a music shop. It's almost like Napster. You can buy the songs, but that is it. The site does not even offer background info. on the band. This fails notability.Metal Head (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the defunct site used on the page is a KPOP wiki =? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment They deleted it from the KPOP wiki site. XD Metal Head (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment So much for that argument [1]. Pandacomics (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It would have been appreciated if this were actually posted at WP:CPOP instead of leaving us in the dark, and having us watch our watchlists. If Chinese language sources count:

(Chinese)
Nomination List for the 3rd Global Chinese Music Awards. September 22, 2003.
TOM Online. Nomination List for the 14th Golden Melody Awards. August 1, 2003. (see also: Golden Melody Awards)
From The Beginning of A Dream, B.A.D begins to admit wrongdoings. March 21, 2004.
Compilation album to be released; is B.A.D's Ben going solo? September 29, 2003.
Are they done releasing? B.A.D dishes out own money to continue singing. December 24, 2004.
Lead single in B.A.D's new album, "Zhe Mo", completely destroys evilness. December 27, 2004.
Lianhe Zaobao. Members of Taiwan's B.A.D were bad when they were students. November 19, 2004.

One could argue that because only Chinese-language sources exist for B.A.D, we shouldn't include them in the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia is striving to counteract systemic bias. My vote is to keep this article, and to rewrite it if someone has the time. Pandacomics (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment The links are in a language that I could not read without translation. Even with translation, they seem to be local reportings on the band. Still not notable. No one cares if they were bad students. The yule site is talking about something bad the band admitted to doing. Once again, not notable to WP:MUSIC. The ent sites are the sites that just say that B.A.D. will release or it asks if they will release again. It does not give light on the importance of the band.Metal Head (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Plus, if this band was notable, KPOP wiki would not have deleted them.Metal Head (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I think the notability guidelines were glanced over.
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. The Golden Melody Awards are notable enough to warrant their own article.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). All those albums in the article were released with EMI Taiwan. Any online store that has their CDs on sale will tell you that. KPOP wiki has nothing to do with notability. There are a bunch of Chinese artists who are notable (Jackie Chan sings, in case you hadn't known) and aren't included there. Pandacomics (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Then you should be the one who translates all the sites so that the English community can see. I can't read chinese. This band belongs on the Chinese wiki, not the english one. At least, not until it can all be translated.Metal Head (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Care to point to a policy that requires translation of foreign-language sources? There isn't one. Granted English-language sources should be used when available, but only quotes used within the article need to be translated, and that is policy. Justin chat 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, there is no rule or policy that sources have to be in English, although its certainly encouraged and desirable. Under the circumstances, I think we'd best give this article the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Comment Policy may not require translation, but a lack of English language sources prevents the majority of readers of the English Wikipedia from being able to verify those sources. DarkAudit (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I believe that if an article is to appear on the english wikipedia, then the sources must be translated to verify to the english readers of the article's importance. This article is very poor. I think it should be deleted for now. If any sites come up in the future, any translated sites, then the page could be re-made.Undeath (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, see Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, it says nothing about requiring a translation to English. (Although we should get a Chinese speaker to come and assess the sources and tell us if they're notable. If not, then I have no objections to deletion). Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep if the only objection is the language of the sources. We write the articles in English, using whatever are the best sources; though it does help avoid deletion for people to explain the content a little in cases like this. DGG (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, we do write the articles in English, but if no one can varify the sources because they are in Chinese, then how can we truly know that the article is notable?Undeath (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Improve or Transkwiki to Chinese WP. Because Eastern languages don't happen to be my specialty I couldn't tell if CWP has an article on them already, but if they don't this should be transwikied. Setting aside Wikipedia policies for a second, an article on a notable subject with absolutely no sources available for readers to follow-up on is really of very little use to anyone. If the language barrier is going to keep us from imparting any more information than is already in the article, then this article really isn't serving any purpose. Send it to Chinese WP, and the editors there can evaluate the subject's notability and improve the article; if this group is truly worth writing about for an English-speaking demographic an informed editor will write a translation at some point. SingCal 22:02, 27 January 2008 (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.