Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viola Beach

Viola Beach

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. While I am nominating this for possible deletion, I do so with some reservations and would be interested in feedback from the community. The subject appears to be a band of very limited notoriety that were it not for the tragic circumstances of their deaths coupled with a very slow news cycle for the British press would likely not rate any notice on these pages. That said the band IS getting a lot of post mortem attention including front page coverage in some of the tabloids. And yes there have been cases of obvious 1E subjects (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) where 1E got chucked by community acclamation. I am not convinced this band rises to that level. That said, this is not the strongest Delete !vote I have ever cast and will happily bow to consensus if the community thinks that this merits inclusion. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of the policy, but 5 Britain's killed in a single event would make the UK news, regardless of the slowness or otherwise of the "news cycle" - whatever that is. Leaky Caldron 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Patently meets general requirements for inclusion. Google news currently has over 450 articles about the crash. And it's not just from the British Press, but also from France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, the United States [1][2][3], Australia. You get the idea. In any case, the band probably met the notability requirements even before the crash.[4][5][6]. See the article's talk page for more examples. Cmeiqnj (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the level of coverage is not a light one. That said your comment ignores 1E and NOTNEWS completely. And it is worth remembering that WP:NOT is WP:POLICY and trumps the guidelines, including GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "routine news reporting". Lapadite (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable for only one event. They were already notable in their own right. From WP:1E: "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." Seems relevant. Cmeiqnj (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this Viola Beach page should probably stay, as it will likely also be relevant to several related, and admittedly morbid, categories - musicians that died young, britons that died abroad, and those that died in car incidents involving bridges. Update 20:23 I concur with Ceannlann gorm that this should be a KeepWaynehfitzgerald (talk)

Comment: A secondary source of notability could possibly lay in the fact that serious accidents in Europe & elsewhere involving vertical-lift bridges, fatal or otherwise, don't seem to be that common these days, or so it seems with a quick search (MS Windoc of course being one of the exceptions). Keep by the way. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They currently have two songs in the UK iTunes top 40, one in the top ten, and will most likely appear on the official top 100 at the end of the week. Appearing in a chart is one criterion for notability and it is likely to apply to them soon. YuckieDuck (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing where any of that falls under the notability guidelines or answers 1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Could you provide a link? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep currently #7 and #33 in the UK iTunes charts (http://kworb.net/popuk/) -- Dschungelfan (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that meets the criteria in WP:CHART. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. 7 in iTunes will most likely lead to a position in the official charts on Friday. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - would have met criteria for inclusion even before recent deaths. fish&karate 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That is a serious question, not rhetorical. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - It seems like they were on their way up. Even if they weren't, the incident would merit an article and could be renamed. Deb (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]