Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/888 (band)


 * 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. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they don't seem to have generated enough coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

888 (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable musical band that fails to meet WP:NBAND and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me unreliable vendor sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Their AllMusic page at: helps a little, but not too much because it doesn't get beyond a basic introduction. The group also appears in occasional non-critical puff pieces like this: . I can find little else beyond the usual streaming and social media services. Also, their lame name makes searching tough, so search in conjunction with the names of the members. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The lame name is part of the reason the article is needed, so reliable information can be found by searchers. But that's not covered in WP either way, as far I'm aware.  A list of more sources can be built over time.  This is a band with a weekly top 40 Billboard for Alternative Music in 2016, so it's worth having the article.  Also, there's nothing contentious within the article.  This article needs a chance to breathe to build up its content.  As much as Allmusic source may not be liked, it is still a legit source for this topic. That said, I found a critique article |Music Monday: 888- Critical Mistakes EP Review with the search "Critical Mistakes 888 critique" in seconds (and it's not a fluff piece), so sources maybe harder to pull together, but there out there.   We just need to put some time into this article.  My view is a balance between immediatism and eventualism.  We have information to start that isn't incorrect or misleading, and we can build up the article over time. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But see also WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a search engine for entities that are invisible elsewhere, and saying that sources might become available in the future is not very convincing unless you have a time machine. The point about immediatism and eventualism is valid, but there is no guarantee that this band will qualify for the eventualism side, and even if they do there's no harm in waiting until after something happens. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: "We need the article so people can Google it" isn't a reason to keep an article. Charting only indicates that a song may be notable per WP:NSONG, and peaking at #24 on one of the relatively minor Billboard charts isn't much anyway. As mentioned there is almost no significant coverage, and "there might be significant coverage later" is also not a reason to keep an article. Even if it was, the fact that they've released only a handful of singles, the last one in 2017, doesn't suggest there's more forthcoming. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (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.