Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agraceful (3rd nomination)

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 delete. Jujutacular ^talk 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agraceful

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

Same issues as from 2nd AFD. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was userfied after the 2nd nomination resulted in delete, and then moved into the mainspace due to the belief that it now meets WP:BAND #6. I deleted it per G4 (since there is still a sourcing issue - the reason for the deletion in the 2nd nomination). There is some relevant discussion at User talk:Krazycev13#Agraceful repost. It briefly went to DRV, before finally ending up here for a de novo discussion as to whether the article (now) meets inclusion criteria. –xeno^talk 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this summary of events by Xeno (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert individual notability; simply having another member of a notable band isn't enough since the band itself hasn't proven notability. Only hits on Gnews were the aforementioned unreliable review and false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you disagree with WP:BAND criterion #6? ("Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.") –xeno^talk 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a precedent that #6 isn't set in stone. Plenty of bands with otherwise notable members have had their articles deleted because the band per se had no other notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gotcha. Thanks, –xeno^talk 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BAND is clear that meeting the criteria means they may be notable not that they are i.e. it's more a if you don't meet these and they are unlikely to be notable. None of the secondary criteria are supposed to override the basic criteria that the world generally has to be interested in the subject. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added in various refs and an EL, largely that pertain to the album. Most of the sources are the more major indie review sites, like Sputnik Music. The band appears to be notable to me. Silver seren^C 00:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass #6, blue linked members are not notable without Agraceful. Ultimate Guitar review is from a user, sputnix review is from a user. indievisionmusic looks like a blog and is not significant. Cleveland Leader is local interest coverage. I didn't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like a blog" for Indie Vision Music is not a very firm statement. And what about Blabbermouth? Silver seren^C 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. #6 is a weak presumption, and only that. ^Bongo_matic 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As was stated in the first AfD, the band meets criteria #11 of WP:BAND, ""Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." They were played frequently on RadioU, which services in California, Ohio, Oklahoma, Washington, and New York. Silver seren^C 16:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not individually notable. RadioU is not a major network. Maybe there is some merge potential for abridged content. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete and actually, Smith's other two bands appear to be equally unnotable which means that WP:BAND#6 shouldn't apply anyway; this is a bit of a walled garden, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BAND says a band may be notable if it meets one of the relevant criteria. This correctly indicates the guideline should be applied flexibly. Marginal claims under isolated grounds of WP:BAND - as are being made here - should be applied with common sense. Barely meeting one criterion does not give an automatic pass. I have considered the sources added to the article. I'm not satisfied as to their reliability. They are wither very brief pieces that demonstrate no indication of the critical coverage that should be acceptable for our standards, or are fairly cursory reviews of albums that tell us little about the band.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2010 (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.