Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan and Liz (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The result was withdrawn by nominator. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Megan and Liz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The bulk of information on this article comes from primary sources: Twitter accounts, YouTube videos, Tumblr accounts. I found only a Stony Brook Independent article that looked promising until I saw it was user-submitted. I'm sure these ladies' career will take off eventually, but as of right now, I'm not seeing enough notability for inclusion here. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional notes: I did read through the first nomination fD. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't consider flash sensation to be encyclopedic. If these two girls were to break up tomorrow, their YouTube videos will still continue to garner hits since, well, YouTube will live on undoubtedly forever. The Internet has made a whole new generation of people "eternal". They could very well live on in a digital world, whether, in this case, the duo breaks up, or if they perish, or if they continue with their careers in another direction.


 * According to a discussion held at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_13, notability cannot be assumed from YouTube views and, by extension, the creation of fan clubs. I have not sat down and counted, but the number of musical subjects that toot their own horns with half a dozen popular social networks, reaching out to millions of fans across the globe—some of whom in turn create "fan sites", no matter how decent looking (gone are the days of Angelfire and Geocities)—have got to be in the hundreds, if not thousands. The Internet has changed and is still changing the music industry (in fact, maybe most industries). But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It's also not an Encyclopedia Britannica, which I understand. But a line must be drawn somewhere as to what would be deemed acceptable and what really shouldn't. Wikipedia is simply not a watershed of every Internet "spike" that happens. In fact, where are the attempted articles for other YouTube sensations Memphis High, Emily Harder, Hayley Stayner, Boyce Avenue, and Tiffany Alvord? (They're mentioned in the M&L article.) Wikipedia thrives off reliable third party publications, which this article sorely lacks, and it's safe to assume that if the media doesn't think Megan & Liz matters, neither should we.


 * For now, I would hope Wikipedia is less dependent on the Internet band du jour and will remain close to its roots. Megan & Liz could very well become the next Lady Gagas, and when they do, the media will welcome them with open arms, and Wikipedia will perform its duty to recount the history of this group. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, one doesn't have to be as big as Lady Gaga to rate an article. But granted you can't be just a nobody either. Under the old criteria of WP:MUSIC they would be in, since they've had a regional tour; but that criteria was removed a while back. So they do not meet any criterion of WP:MUSIC, I don't think. However, as mentioned at various places, the question is whether WP:MUSIC is behind the times. I would say that they have a lot of the ancillary markers of what, in the past, we would have associated with a marginally notable band: been on the television box, toured the United States, opened for a bluelinked artist, been part of the music scene with other notable artists, etc. etc., the things that notable bands do. What they don't have is recording contract with a major label. What they do have instead -- according to the article anyway -- is "the 33rd most subscribed music channel on YouTube". Does this mean anything or not? Is this the modern equivalent of having a #27 hit on the radio or deal with Chess Records to cut an LP or whatever? I don't know, I don't watch the youtubes and don't consider anything later than Johnny Ray and Joni James to be worth listening to, so I'm not the one to say. But we do have some under-30's here at the Wikipedia and I'd like to hear what they have to say about this. Herostratus (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be an interesting case. But there's no real media coverage on them. That right there throws the whole thing out the window, for me at any rate. This example isn't going to change WP:MUSIC because there's nothing to change. If WP:Music is behind the times, then there would be a dozen more of these similar cases. I haven't really seen them. I have a video on YouTube with 1.8 million hits. Does that make me partially notable for some random reason? Not at all. Meg & Liz are popular on YouTube now, but not forever. Their everlasting value hasn't been established, not yet. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"In fact, where are the attempted articles for other YouTube sensations Memphis High, Emily Harder, Hayley Stayner, Boyce Avenue, and Tiffany Alvord?" - As far as I'm aware, Boyce Avenue and Tiffany Alvord do have Wikipedia articles. The Boyce Avenue articles seems supported, but I think Tiffany Alvord's page should be flagged for possible deletion as well. The others are not very well known at all and haven't gained much notority on YouTube, which is why they wouldn't have Wikipedia articles. Megan & Liz do have some notority - they were featured on Oprah, they have gone on tours and performances, and they recently got verification from Twitter, which means that they are a notable group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'papillon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not the community at large, obviously, but verification by Twitter means absolutely zilch to me. If I were the author of a biograpy on any given celebrity, Twitter verification would not be mentioned in the sources at the back of the book. But Oprah would be a good addition and would help the notability of these people a bit. If they were on Oprah, then there will be articles written about them for having been on Oprah. It should escalate from there. As for Boyce and Tiffany, I did a search for several of the names, stopping at Hayley. Just coincidence. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Oprah is already mentioned. It isn't as bolstering to their notability as I imagined since they were not the featured guests, but I'm sure it helps. Still, only one article mentions it? –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just don't see them as unnotable and unpopular enough to be deleted, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So popularity = notability? –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Additional comment This may work against my own nomination, but I'm open to accepting that notability may be changing with the times. I just checked the monthly visits for this page, and the last three months have seen an increase in traffic, from 4,000 hits to 8,000 and finally 10,000 hits. I was impressed. Along with the lack of consensus being reached, would this help the article attain a keep? If so, the perhaps it's time to just let the nom close as such. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 00:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep since could be construed as significant coverage per WP:GNG, and AFD discussions should not be left open indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing nomination. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:04, 7 May 2011 (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.