Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Boys (2nd 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. Not sure exactly why (from a 'what does society care about anymore?' perspective) they garnered enough coverage to be notable, but consensus is they have. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Island Boys
AfDs for this article:


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

These men are more well-known for their controversial behavior on social media than their musical careers so they fail WP:BAND. Also the first AFD that was held soon after this article was created was less than decisive in determining to Keep this article. I think their notoriety might have increased in the past year but not their musical success. Being considered a "meme" and being controversial are not the same as notability. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If WP:BAND fails here, I think the focus would be does their notoriety pass WP:GNG? I think that would solidify the AfD reasoning overall. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BAND; apart from that, these influencers are not notable apart from one viral video of which their popularity has slowly been dying off. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - certainly fails WP:BAND, but they pass GNG in my opinion. The Insider article (Insider culture is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP) is very significant coverage and independent of the subject. NBC News is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, and this article is very significant coverage and independent of the subject. The Daily Dot is considered "fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact" at WP:RSP. Yahoo! News is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, The New Zealand Herald is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP (though article is syndicated through news.com.au), XXL is considered generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC, AllHipHop is considered generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. TMZ is considered questionable at WP:RSP, but there are several articles dedicated to the subjects there.
 * There was the reporting on the murder suspect arrested at their home, arguably more tangential/trivial, but probably only notable because of the involvement of the subjects; People CBS, HotNewHipHop and Paper. They are also the subject of a recent documentary (Axios, generally reliable at WP:RSP). I think notability is evident and the article should be improved to reflect this. Mbdfar (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per @Mbdfar. It's clear the initial event was what gave them a platform, but subsequent events have shown notability independent of their first video. They clearly meet WP:GNG. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (sigh...) - Alas, we must admit that we're in a new age where people become famous -- or in WP terms, generally notable -- for dumber and dumber reasons. One problem here is that the article is structured as if these guys are a band, so several of the voters so far are judging them on musical success. Actually, the article should describe them as "social media personalities" and go forward from there, like with Charli D'Amelio, Khaby Lame, and others with whatever chutzpah is needed to get into that line of work. I think these guys are famous for stupid reasons, but they have indeed been noticed by the reliable media for their talentless shenanigans. Just like the rest of the hypermedia, we're stuck with 'em. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. My positions and arguments are mostly identical to that of @Mbdfar. While I sympathize with @Doomsdayer520 on how we're having more social media people getting WP pages, this is the route that the world is taking. Personal opinion aside, I'm with the "BANDwagon" (no pun intended) that this is a BAND fail but a GNG pass.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely fails to comply the rule "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Marco Ettore (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how WP:NOTDATABASE applies to an 8,000 byte biographical article. Mbdfar (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2023 (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.