Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.Y.T. (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.Y.T. (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails all twelve of the faily lax criteria for notability of musicians/ensembles. Notability (music) Fixer23 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete of course it fails. Because the criteria keep on changing, so one day it's in, and one day it's out.  An example of this sillyness, is that it used to be if you could verify a substantial national tour, that was good enough.  But, now the coverage itself, must be substantial.  Fine, but what a waste of effort it is write stuff to be deleted.  Best delete it now, and safe future effort of foolish people trying to improve it.  No wander Wikipedia is losing editors in droves, as people realize this is a total waste of time and effort.  --Rob (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this group has never been on such a tour, so that's moot here. Fixer23 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I didn't say it had been on a tour. I was referring to the sillyness of the guidelines, which I noticed that change, just now, following your link..  If I was arguing for retention, I'd add some sources, easily found, improve content, format with proper inline citations, and put them in the article.  But, I won't, and nobody will, because nobody cares.  If I did bother, and did get this kept, the rules would change again, and it would be nomed again.  So, let's just delete it now. --Rob (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it. I mean what's the point of bringing it up if it doesn't relate to this article, since that guideline change does not apply here. (Which logically means this article shouldn't have even existed under old guidelines, it simply does not warrant an article) This article has been around for years now if someone was going to improve it they could have done so a long time ago. The fact of the matter is there simply isn't enough coverage to make a substantial article without using dodgy sources like forums and blogspot. Fixer23 (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't read anything here, since you're arguing against a non-existant side. Nobody is arguing for keeping the article.  Notice, I said "delete".  Anyways, thanks for all your words, as you've helped illustrate what's wrong with Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you've stated your "delete" suggests that you are bitter about the way wikipedia has progressed and that you would very much want the article to stay and the only reason you're supporting the delete is not based on wikipedia policy but on the fact that you think you have wasted time improving upon an article that someone has nominated for deletion. The matter is simple, the band does not appear to be notable no matter how much effort has been spent on it (I personally can't see it). Fixer23 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just one of numerous articles I'm actively trying to delete. We're both guilty of spending way to much time on this, as evidence by the the length of this thread, and lack of interest by others.   --Rob (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Below is some of the coverage they have recieved. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "shrink-wrapping: a girl group" by DAVE SCHEIBER, 2 July 2000, St. Petersburg Times
 * "Want to be a pop star? Start at Super Bowl Series:" by DAVE SCHEIBER, 19 January 2001, St. Petersburg Times
 * "Girls in the group, PYT, grew up together in music" by Cynthia J. Drake, 13 May 2001, The Grand Rapids Press
 * Down With Me (Epic) review by Gerald Martinez, 2 September 2001, Sunday Mail
 * Down With Me review by Christie Leo, 27 January 2002, New Sunday Times
 * That's great! Why weren't they included in the article? Although the last two are reviews and not actual coverage of the band itself.Fixer23 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What stopped you from putting these sources in the article, or searching for them before assuming that they didn't exist? -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not come across these articles and do not know where this user got them as they do not turn up in multiple google searches, for charting information, general information, awards information etc. (Perhaps they have been collecting sources? And also the fact that all the articles posted by the user are Pay-Per-View doesn't help. Same goes for the other nomination, if I had found coverage I wouldn't have nominated in the first place). Fixer23 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - not based on my interest in the group, but the fact that they achieved a small amount of notability, such as it is. And most of this debate so far is a failed attempt at irony and sarcasm that quickly got detached from the merits of the article in question.-- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I regret being drawn into the user's pity party and have pointed out numerous times to him that his points are tangential to the discussion.Fixer23 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial local coverage of band that never charted. Fails WP:MUSIC. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Has been covered in nationally-recognised media, and also in media well outside their local area (The Grand Rapids Press is in Michigan - a long, long way from Tampa! Therefore decidedly not "trivial local coverage".). Also, I'd like to suggest that User:Thivierr's 'delete' vote be disregarded by the closing admin, given his "nobody cares, Wikipedia is broken, delete it now and don't waste time trying to improve it" argument. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 08:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - 90s teenage girl groups honestly aren't my thing so I'm not going to search for references, but this is actually the first musical group page nominated for deletion that's on a band I've actually heard of, so presumably they were covered in a teen magazine or two in the 90s. Roscelese (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per the nom, fails Notability (music) and as per Abductive, local coverage of a band that never charted. It is a shame to delete articles but we would better improve and preserve and protect notable articles than to write about everyone in the whole world. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You did see the reference from The Grand Rapids Press, right? That's not by any stretch of the imagination "local coverage" for a band from Tampa, Florida, unless we want to consider, for instance, a German newspaper's coverage of a Spanish band "local" as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it had value it would have been inserted into the article, users stuffing a load of vague cites on the talkpage of an AFD does nothing for me, either ask for it to be userfyed where you can improve it or improve it during the AFD is my position, I would never vote to keep an article with vague mentions of notability that no one adds to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Could do wiht more sources. There appears to have been one ow two mentions. But the artciel is very on-sourced.A source (perhaps, its not exactly in depth. http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2001-02-16-teen-upstarts.htm. The coverage does appear to all be rather trivial metions. Sorry but at the moment it does seem to fall short of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (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.