Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan and Liz (3rd 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Megan and Liz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Simple YouTube artists. Do not meet WP:NMUSIC.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete only non-trivial source is local news coverage, everything else is YouTube, Facebook, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Also: all albums are self-produced and distributed by their own label. Majority of article is promotional, and majority of references are first-person (twitter, tumblr, etc.) -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess. I dunno. There were discussions at the earlier AfD's and a discussion at the WP:MUSIC talk page and so forth, the question being whether or not WP:MUSIC is accurate anymore or needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. I don't know if that was ever decided. I do know that WP:MUSIC doesn't require a given sales level of 8-track tapes or 78 RPM records for an act to be notable, so maybe it's sufficiently up to date. Anyway, it appears that this duo has a lot of the markers that we generally associate with notable acts:
 * The have millions of fans, or hundreds of thousands of fans, or some large number of fans, however this is manifested and however difficult it is to count them.
 * They have had a regional tour in the United States. (This was once one of the WP:MUSIC criteria but has been removed.)
 * They have appeared on Oprah (albeit briefly and not as featured guests).
 * They have opened for bluelinked acts.
 * They are part of the music "scene" generally with bluelinked acts, hang out with them, appear on stage with them and in their songs and videos and so forth.
 * And they seem to be sticking around, having been at this for about four years now. It's true that they don't have the traditional WP:MUSIC marker of two albums on a major or important indie label. On the other hand, they sell their songs directly through amazon.com and itunes so they probably don't feel the need to have a label and an album. If it was 1982 they probably would have been signed by RCA Records or whomever by now. And they have millions of YouTube hits. Whether that matters I don't know. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok...
 * Number of fans is irrelevant.
 * Touring is irrelevant.
 * One appearance on Oprah is irrelevant.
 * Opening for a notable artist doesn't make them notable.
 * Who they hang out with is irrelevant
 * How long they have been in the music industry is irrelevant
 * It's cool "they probably don't feel the need to have a label and an album". That's part of the criteria to be in this encyclopedia.
 * "If it was 1982 they probably would have been signed by RCA Records or whomever by now." Please read WP:CRYSTAL.
 * YouTube hits are irrelevant.
 * Please read the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Also, please see how this act accomplishes none of the criteria. Thank you. I Help, When I Can.[12] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that all this is irrelevant. It's information. Whether it's useful information or not I can't say. But let's not say it's not information. It is. Regarding WP:NMUSIC, it's a guideline, not a policy, and as such it proclaims at the top that "...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Does an exception apply here? Maybe. I've raised the question whether WP:NMUSIC's reliance on albums-with-a-major-label remains up-to-date; I'm not sure. Maybe it is. I wouldn't say that "number of fans is irrelevant", though. What if they had more fans than the Beatles but just chose not to record albums but instead put put videos and sell individual songs through downloads? I dunno. On the other hand their dead-tree media coverage seems nonexistent (although they do have some amount of online-zine coverage, which may not mean much). So they are pretty borderline in that sense. I mean, you have a point. My gut feeling is that they're probably notable enough to have an article, but it's hard to prove. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point of having a guideline if you don't follow it. If we were more dismissive with the guideline, we might as well let every Tom, Dick, and Harry get an article. I'm sorry, when it comes to notability, the aforementioned factors are irrelevant. They do not deserve an exception. It takes a lot to get around this guideline. And to respond to the fans thing, your getting into crystal ball hypotheticals. If they did have that many fans, there would be media coverage on it. I don't see it as borderline. I see it as not worth the bytes. I Help, When I Can.[12] 20:50, 28 July 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) 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm not even going to try and search for mentions on Yahoo! or Google because if they're YouTube artists> As well with common names like Megan and Liz, the chances of notable sources being found is second to none. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:MUSIC, seems like wikipedia isnt up to speed with the whole Youtube era yet.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But, it doesn't pass it...--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it does.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of opinion. Which part of it does it pass?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I found where they pass WP:MUSIC! Others-5: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." They are prominent representatives of the YouTube subculture. Here's another article that calls them YouTube sensations: Moscowconnection (talk) 10:14, 6 August 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.