Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Bath


 * 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   no consensus. Nakon 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghost Bath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub article that fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. I'm a fan of this band but they do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. There's websites like Metal Archives for stuff like this. It's another minor and underground band that doesn't need to be on here. Second Skin (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Keep – There's actually a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources. Ghost Bath was the subject of two feature-length articles from Vice ' s metal blog Noisey with additional coverage or album reviews from Consequence of Sound, MetalSucks, Stereogum and Pitchfork Media. There's plenty of information from reliable sources to establish a reasonably detailed article. I say weak, however, because I believe this is just enough to barely fly by the notability guidelines, and most of these sources were published within the last two weeks as the subject is currently within the process of establishing Wiki notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * in response to that, there are many bands who have made publicities like that which aren't on Wikipedia for the sole fact that they aren't notable enough. For example; Infant Annihilator,No Clean Singing Slice the Cake,MetalSucks & Mega Star Reviews Ingested (band), Metal Injection (and the band is signed to Century Media Records now) Epicardiectomy,MetalSucks,Teeth of the Divine Rose FuneralMetalSucks,Metal Injection,Metal Underground,AllMusic and Female Nose Breaker,Metal Underground do not have articles (without to mention many articles for several of these bands have been made several times but ended up being deleted). Second Skin (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF — comparing Ghost Bath to articles that do and do not exist is neither a strong nor compelling argument. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're on the topic of an article in which we are in debate over if its existence is even going to be a thing anymore, then isn't what I just said a "strong" or at least relevant argument? Second Skin (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. First of all, the link WP:OTHERSTUFF is a subsection of a larger article titled Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions. Second, the notability or non-notability of subjects do not relate to the notability or non-notability of other subjects — this discussion is for evaluating the notability of Ghost Bath on its own merits, not how it stacks up to other subjects. This opens up the possibility of arguing from the reverse position of finding articles that are similar but weren ' t deleted. For example, above I provided seven reliable sources for Ghost Bath. When I created an article for the underground metal band Heiress, that article only had seven sources as well. But it didn't get deleted. If Heiress gets a page, then Ghost Bath gets a page. Was that a strong or compelling argument? Does Heiress have anything to do with Ghost Bath's notability? No. Or to use a non-band example, does the claim, "George Washington would make a terrible President. He's a lot like my friend Billy, and Billy was the worst and would make a terrible President, therefore George Washington is the worst and would also make a terrible President," persuade you at all? A cogent argument here would make a claim directly relating Ghost Bath to WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, and a cogent response to my point would directly relate to the sources I provided, not other stuff. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article creator) - meets WP:GNG. Also please can you advise why I wasn't informed about this discussion? Rather disingenious of you. GiantSnowman 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would I know? It's not my job to inform everyone, I didn't even know who made the page. Second Skin (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SecondSkin, for future reference, it actually is your job as the nominator to notify the creator/major contributors. Per WP:AFD: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use Duesentrieb's ActiveUsers tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics." Fezmar9 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2015 (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.