Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne (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   keep. Were I the God King of Wikipedia, I'd nuke every notability guideline other than WP:N from orbit; it would be the only way to be sure. Until that day, meeting WP:MUSIC point two is sufficient, though the meeting of WP:N is probably closer to yes than no anyhow. Wily D 07:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jayne
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I think this is a WP:BIO as there is not significant coverage in third party sources. There is a single charted song and a brief mention about the group's members but nothing substantial apart from a brief mention at All Music. Generally per WP:GNG really don't think this article is susstantial and the group hasn't been heard of since 2008. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a rehash of the 2nd nomination, also by Lil-Unique1. The band's charting single qualifies it according to WP:MUSIC bullet 2, which hurdles the notability requirement, regardless of WP:GNG. Chubbles (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The write-up in The Stranger (referenced in the article) looks okay, and additional coverage exists at Idolator and Allmusic (different from the Allmusic bio referenced in the article).  Gongshow  Talk 04:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only info I found was:
 * The Atlanta Journal and Constitution article is detailed, but the focus is on the mom. It still is significant coverage of the topic. I tried getting a URL from http://www.ajc.com/search but it wouldn't come up (I think the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's archive only goes back one year). The Stranger article is rather short and The Fayetteville Observer is only two mentions. Reliable source interest in the topic began and ended in 2007-2008. I think if there is revived reliable source interest in the topic it may meet WP:GNG. In the mean time, delete. The prior two AfDs seemed more about rewarding the topic with a Wikipedia article for charting than finding enough reliable source material from which to write the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Journal and Constitution article is detailed, but the focus is on the mom. It still is significant coverage of the topic. I tried getting a URL from http://www.ajc.com/search but it wouldn't come up (I think the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's archive only goes back one year). The Stranger article is rather short and The Fayetteville Observer is only two mentions. Reliable source interest in the topic began and ended in 2007-2008. I think if there is revived reliable source interest in the topic it may meet WP:GNG. In the mean time, delete. The prior two AfDs seemed more about rewarding the topic with a Wikipedia article for charting than finding enough reliable source material from which to write the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Journal and Constitution article is detailed, but the focus is on the mom. It still is significant coverage of the topic. I tried getting a URL from http://www.ajc.com/search but it wouldn't come up (I think the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's archive only goes back one year). The Stranger article is rather short and The Fayetteville Observer is only two mentions. Reliable source interest in the topic began and ended in 2007-2008. I think if there is revived reliable source interest in the topic it may meet WP:GNG. In the mean time, delete. The prior two AfDs seemed more about rewarding the topic with a Wikipedia article for charting than finding enough reliable source material from which to write the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Journal and Constitution article is detailed, but the focus is on the mom. It still is significant coverage of the topic. I tried getting a URL from http://www.ajc.com/search but it wouldn't come up (I think the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's archive only goes back one year). The Stranger article is rather short and The Fayetteville Observer is only two mentions. Reliable source interest in the topic began and ended in 2007-2008. I think if there is revived reliable source interest in the topic it may meet WP:GNG. In the mean time, delete. The prior two AfDs seemed more about rewarding the topic with a Wikipedia article for charting than finding enough reliable source material from which to write the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, whilst I agree a charting single helps, alone it is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll note again that WP:GNG is not the standard by which music articles are held in notability issues. The GNG is, in fact, WP:MUSIC bullet 1, but it is only one of several criteria which may result in an artist's warranting an article. Chubbles (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify, whilst i accept that they have had a charting single... the fact that the single charted makes that particular song notable however the notability of an artist is not inherited from having one notable song/single. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see the utility of having an article for a song and not an artist. In nearly all cases previously (one-hit wonders) we have gone with the standard of most other music publications and provided information by artist rather than the song itself. We could have an article for both, I guess, but it doesn't seem to me like splitting out a separate article on their hit "Rain" would be worth the effort. Chubbles (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2012 (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.