Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Louie and Julcia's Polka 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Louie and Julcia's Polka Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable and questionably improvable music article as I simply found nothing better than this and I also found nothing solid to support the Grammy nomination and this simply hasn't changed much since starting in September 2008. Pinging taggers and  and also users who comment at these topic AfDs  and. SwisterTwister  talk  21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Has been nominated for a major music award (Grammy) . Meets criterion #8 of WP:MUSICBIO. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete A Grammy nomination and inducted into the Polka Hall of fame almost make me want to consider keeping, but neither are particularly impressive in their "fringe" elements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Grammy nomination means they pass WP:BAND, that's all there is to it. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I do note the Grammy nomination, but the Keep proponents are missing an important fact: that all subjects still must meet the GNG. I've run searches on both Highbeam and Newspapers.com, and I've got nothing beyond routine performance notices: "Happy Louie is playing at Paul's Mall at 9 PM Thursday, tickets $10 at the door."  The mere fact of a Grammy nomination in an obscure (and no longer nominated) genre -- and at the time, there were over a hundred categories for nomination -- absent any coverage that would satisfy the GNG can't sustain an article.   Ravenswing   06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Grammy nomination is enough to indicate that the subject is suitable for inclusion. Like any guideline, GNG never has to be satisfied. There is coverage going back to the 1960s, e.g., , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Come now. Not a single one of those links even rise to the level of casual coverage -- they're captions and namedrops, and only a couple mention the subject using as much as a single complete sentence.  Turning your statement around, MUSICBIO holds that "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." (emphasis in the original)    Ravenswing   10:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the problem with GNG as it applies to pre-internet-era music - the coverage anyone recieved is 99% offline and undigitised. For minority interest genre music the problem is even worse. The way we can get around this is to lean more heavily on WP:BAND as that provides alternative ways to demonstrate notability. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come now yourself. At least one of the sources provided is inarguably more than "casual coverage" and also more than "a single complete sentence", as shown in the quotation below. You can't expect other editors to take your argument seriously if you're going to grossly mischaracterize the evidence under consideration. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 16:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"[Multiple fans and musicians told] the author in personal conversations that if not for Happy Louie they would never have become involved in polka music. Most of these fans and musicians are near middle-age and would have been in adolescence and young adulthood when Happy Louie released one of his most important anthems" That establishes that Happy Louie and his band were influential (and the quoted passage isn't the only mention of him in the cited journal). I'll acknowledge that this is an edge case for notability, but on balance I think keeping the article is the correct choice. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for failing GNG, or if someone is willing to add the nominations to the 37th Annual Grammy Awards, this could be redirected there. BAND says notability may be satisfied by one of the criteria, not that it necessarily is. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete: As noted above, the Grammy nomination was for an obscure category no longer awarded, and there isn't a single instance of substantial coverage anyone has been able to find. Were there even one such source, I would be inclined to add that to the nomination and find that together they indicated notability... but there does not seem to be one. Must remember, AGF but double-check. I found a source which goes directly to Happy Louie's notability:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 19 November 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.