Talk:Her's

Unnamed
The band's members death is reported by the BBC and it has appeared on its front page. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-47742694 --47.185.224.154 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability
Is this band only notable due to their death? Philaweb (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there was coverage of them prior to their death as shown in the article. Andise1 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I asked for notability – WP:BAND. Their achievements were very limited. Philaweb (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They were tipped as an up-and-coming band by NME, The Guardian, and the BBC, amongst others. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find WP articles about bands that haven't achieved so much. JezGrove (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A promising band is quite a low treshold for notability, and that can't be changed now, unless their only album certifies gold in the time to come. Philaweb (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gold certification seems rather high? To choose a random example beginning with "A", I notice Acârash have an article, but no gold record and no greater notability than Her's as far as I can see. JezGrove (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG appears to be met here. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does it? All relevant articles that I can find are referencing their unfortunate accident. Looking at the requirements for WP:BAND, I'm not sure they meet the requirements. As for the reference to Acârash, I looked at the page and it is also mentioned that this band had members from several notable black metal bands. This would qualify their notability under criteria #6 (although I wish the editor would have added a citation to that specific line.) Jasonstru (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be moot. They are receiving significant coverage now that is more detailed than just about their death. People can become notable post-death. Only requirement is that the sources also describe in detail the pre-March 2019 period.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-death notability is possible, yes, but the coverage still has to be according to WP:BAND to reach notability. So, what has not been reported yet? Philaweb (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a look at some of the sources I have added especially this one from August. Their death was just a tipping point. NMUSIC is not necessary when GNG is satisfied.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article from Dork is used to verify four singles that the band released. Musicians make music and release it via some sort of media, but that does not give them notability. To take notice of bands that are noteworthy, something extra is required to get an article on Wikipedia. I am afraid that the only extra ordinary about this band (according to sources) is their gruesome fate. Philaweb (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current state of this article is irrelevant to the question of notability. But good advise. I have added notable facts sourced from Dork.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But looking over the requirements of WP:BAND, this band unfortunately doesn't meet it. As mentioned by Philaweb, the release of singles in itself does not meet the notability requirement. Jasonstru (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG trumps WP:BAND. Can you argue that GNG is not met? BAND #1 is GNG. There are citations in the article from 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 from before their death.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although there may be mentions from 2016-19, the "significant coverage" is from their accident. If the band was notable prior to the accident, then why didn't we see a page created for them until their accident was announced? Jasonstru (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the matter right now is to just stop arguing over insignificant issues such as notability and get on with achieving Wikipedia's goal of centralising human knowledge all in to one medium. I see the notability issue as moot and we really shouldn't invest our own good time into arguing about it. The band does have news articles so I don't see why it can't have it's own article. &#32; Eolais | Talk | Contribs  12:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna disagree with your point about Wikipedia being a centralized point of knowledge. I wish Wikipedia would be flexible enough to where anything within reason (big qualifier) could be listed. I've had dozens of pages deleted because of notability. Pages that I spent hours if not days setting up. But without the previous mentioned qualifiers, this place would be a mess. People would be listing terrible bar bands that are stuck playing cover songs for the last 25 years as being notable, but I digress. The notability qualifiers are there for a reason and we can't arbitrarily call those "moot." Yes, it is a tragedy what happened, but unfortunately they have only become newsworthy after their accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonstru (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the article has featured on the main page's In the news now. JezGrove (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)