Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gren (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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Gren (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Easily fails WP:GNG and with only one low-charting song on a secondary chart, likely fails WP:MUSICBIO, but without RSes, there's nothing to keep here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep As the nominator notes, the band had a charting single, which meets WP:MUSIC. We do not completely lack for RSes; there's a smattering of bio info for every artist in Joel Whitburn's books, and AMG's got coverage (bio, review); since this is a 1990s band, I imagine much of the bulk of RS coverage will be in offline sources. Chubbles (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BAND criteria #2 based on a Billboard charting single as shown on their website. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 02:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I do not see anything notable about this band. I do not consider charting on the Mainstream Rock radio chart to establish notability ('national chart', to me, would indicate charting on the primary chart, I do not think this is addressed in the guidelines). Did not release two or more records on a major label (had one album and an EP 12 years after disbanding?). Fails GNG and NMBIO in my view. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's long been established that genre- and market-specific charts in large and diverse countries (such as the US) count fully as much as the Hot 100 for determining notability. Releasing two albums on a major label helps with WP:MUSIC, but the lack of it does not preclude meeting the guideline; there's no reason why two albums on a major label should be a prerequisite. Chubbles (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. They are never automatically notable just because they charted. They may be notable if they chart. That's all. They never released two albums, only one. The second work was an EP. Also, nothing they have done has attracted press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "automatically" means in this context, but charting on Billboard has been the closest thing we have to a gold standard for WP:MUSIC for as long as I have been editing. I don't see why we would want to not have an article on a group that meets WP:MUSIC; as noted, there are available sources, so we don't have a WP:V issue here, and there are plenty of acts that are notable who released only one full-length album. Chubbles (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it has not. There has been a lot of debate about this, and editor like you continue to forget that WP:MUSICBIO has the term " may " in the criteria. It simply means that just because they have charted does not automatically mean that they are notable. There are plenty of acts who are notable for one work, but this is not one of them. if they are notable, provide reliable sources (more than one) that discuss the band at length. If not, stop stating that we should keep articles about bands that no one else cares to write about. If outside sources do not write about them neither should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't know what "automatically" means in this context. But it sounds like you are claiming that, in addition to meeting the SNG of WP:MUSIC, the article also needs to meet the GNG, and it most certainly does not; there would be no need for the SNG if that were true. As I noted, we do not completely lack for outside sources, and both WP:MUSIC and WP:V are met. I'm happy to see it included if and when more are found (and I am confident there are more beyond our lazy Google searches), but that coverage is not necessary based on what we already have. Chubbles (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This SNG in particular does not make the claim that if criteria is met that the subject are notable. You do read that, right? Bcause it sounds like you are claiming that any band or musician that meets one criteria is immediately notable and you are ignore the qualifier of may . Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, "immediately", same as "automatically". These are straw-man words. The question becomes, if the subject meets the guideline, why would we want to exclude it from inclusion - why would we choose to say it's not notable anyway? The answer I hear is "because it doesn't meet the GNG", or "because it doesn't meet bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC", which is the GNG. But again, if that were the criterion, then the SNG would not be needed, and if this is a special case meriting deletion in unusual circumstances, I don't think there's a compelling IAR rationale for deletion here (certainly, none has been provided). Chubbles (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, they are not straw man words. You are wikilawyering Chubbles. MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands. It simply lists criteria by which a band or musician may be notable. In short, this band meets aone criterion, and yet they are clearly not in any way notable. Get the word may removed from the criteria and this conversation ends. While it remains in-place, you can state they meet an item on the list, but that does make them notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't know how anyone who edits regularly in music can come to the conclusion that "MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands". That is precisely its purpose. In any case, I doubt dragging this out any further will dislodge either of us from our perches. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I frankly do not know how anyone who speaks English cannot understand that the word may means. You can keep trying to confuse the issue, but that word is still there. I doubt that dragging this out any further will get you to acknowledge your error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's not much to work with, but the "keep" voters above are more convincing on how there is enough for a short stub article on this band. They meet #2 and #4 at WP:NBAND due to the charting single and the ensuing media coverage that is already cited in the article. The argument above on "may" and "automatically" etc. achieves nothing and is a bad reason to keep this AfD going for weeks and weeks. Those accusing others of wikilawyering could stand to look in the mirror. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the people who !voted for keep will actually add content then, otherwise it remains a perma-stub, which is useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer service / There is no deadline / Permastub. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but we don't keep Permastubs and editors like the two of you prefer that we do, so perhaps spend less time on commenting on hopeless articles and spend time working on it. Your choices speak volumes as to your commitment to Wikipedia. I have been involved in at least three other AfDs over the past year or two where the only keep comments have come from you and Chubbles and those articles are still in a sad state, and readers still have no clue why the articles exist, but we have had an AfD that said they charted, and so we must keep them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You know less than jack, but why let that stop you? Disagreeing with other people's votes in AfDs gives you zero evidence for conclusions about their motivations. You have no idea how many Wikipedia articles I have improved over the years, nor do you know this about anyone else. The last several pages of my contribution history "speak volumes" about how much you don't know about my commitment to improving articles. That same contribution history also shows that I am more likely to vote to delete articles that come to the Bands/Musicians AfD page, including many that were nominated by you. Looking forward to your next gripe about how you're the only smart person around here. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 00:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doomsdayer520, please don't comment on what I do and do not know. Also, we do not vote. In short, glad you're such a committed editor, this band is not worth incusion on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note: WG says above, "we don't keep Permastubs". Per the linked essay: "Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion.". Chubbles (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (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.