Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan and Liz (4th 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.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Per reasons brought up in the previous nominations, most importantly, that it does not pass WP:MUSIC. I Help, When I Can.[12] 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete already. As with the last AFD, I found nothing of substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I agree with the notion - presented in the earlier AfDs - that a musical act does not necessarily have to be signed to a major label and/or reach the charts in order to be notable, I'm not particularly persuaded by social media prominence (i.e. "fan following") alone being an exception to our guidelines. If there is substantial interest in a subject, then reliable sources will have written about it. With that in mind, the best cases for significant coverage appear to be the articles in ExploreLI (Newsday) and the Niles Daily Star. Any others?  Gongshow  Talk 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A touring band with a record label and songs for sale through Amazon seems to be notable enough to me. K e rowyn Leave a note 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with WP:MUSIC? I Help, When I Can.[12] 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I dunno -- I kind of object to this nom on procedural grounds. There was an AfD earlier in the same month, and I don't know if any article should exist in a more or less permanent state of being at AfD. On the merits, I don't have a strong opinion. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The page views of this article are startlingly high if they were really non-notable.  In one day they get more views than my sweet collection of 19th century Nebraska lieutenant governor articles will get in a year.  They were on Oprah, so that's already beyond Greyson Chance territory.  And if we delete so soon after prior AfD, its just the vagaries of AfD participation, not anything else.  It doesn't harm wikipedia to wait 6 months before re-nominating.  No consenus is no consensus.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think probably in that they don't have any articles about them in notable publications. If they're so big, why isn't there even a short article about them in Rolling Stone or... I dunno, Spin or Melody Maker or whatever they have nowadays, or even Teen Beat or whatever. It's an important point. There are other notability markers for this entity, so I'm not voting one way or the other. But YouTube Generation or no YouTube Generation, music magazines stay in business by covering popular artists. The lack of notable dead-tree coverage is a sticking point. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was up for deletion as recently as July, to bring it up for possible deletion ones again so soon, and also after no consensus for 4 nominationa is disrespecting the Wikipedia in my opinion. Wikipedians need to get a clue about Youtube and the phenomenas and the fact that people can get record labels and succeed in music trough that media. They are touring are signed to a record label. good enough for me. (again!).--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. I agree with Herostratus here. You would think that with all the "buzz" that this group supposedly has, there would be more coverage of them by real reporters writing real articles that have to be approved by real editors. However, going back to the 2 sources provided by gongshow, this is a supersource, this I'm not sure about, it seems to fall short of "significant coverage" but is more then a trivial mention (but it is Megan and Liz featured in the big honking photo at the top). Another supersource or 2 would really be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That big honking photo is them, and Newsday, I was surprised to learn not long ago, is something like the 10th highest circulation newspaper in the United States.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:19, 10 September 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.