Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTAF


 * 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  17:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

PTAF

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN group, fails WP:NMUSIC. MSJapan (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage by US entertainment press outlets such as Billboard, The Fader, The Source, BET, XXL, and The Hollywood Reporter. Chubbles (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - this is coatracking. All you've done is find citations to cover material already in the article, most of which is in the citations already there.  In short, there's nothing "new" - they did a viral song (unnecessarily corroborated by two sources), they got a record deal either before or after Nicki Minaj sampled them (sources conflict), and they never actually released a record.  You're angling for meeting one criterion for a limited amount of time, and I'm pointing out they don't meet the other 11 at all.  MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's being coatracked here; what is the actual notable subject which is being ostensibly cloaked by PTAF or "Boss Ass Bitch"? Being a viral video star is a notable occurrence (permanently) if it is covered sufficiently in third-party sources, and this group has been covered by a bevy of them, including three of the top black entertainment press outlets in the US (The Source, BET, and XXL). This is the case regardless of whether Minaj sampled them before or after the record deal, and even regardless of whether they ever got signed in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All within roughly a six-month period, after which they are never heard from again. The other half of NTEMP makes the point that notability is not temporary (note the change in emphasis), and a flurry of media hype followed by nothing is usually a pretty good indicator that we're not showing notability outside the news cycle (significant coverage "over time").  That's only compounded by the utter lack of any output by the group after that point.  It's coatracking because the same story is being told in essentially the same timeframe by multiple outlets - there's no depth to the coverage. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have trouble distinguishing between what you are calling coatracking and actual notability - a popular song covered in the same time frame by multiple outlets defines a notable musical event; it'd be the same for a charting single or a well-reviewed album release, which gets a flurry of activity at the moment it's issued, and is thereby notable even if nobody writes about it again for decades. Beyond this, there is later coverage; XXL covered the release of their next single about a year after their first coverage started, as did The Source, and the Hollywood Reporter article dates from 2016 (your removal of this story's date was in error - I doubt the website's own date is incorrect (it's probably not even entered by humans), and the film got wide release in March of 2016, exactly when the story was published). Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article about the song, or perhaps discuss if there is another merge target.  Montanabw (talk)  21:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no article about the song...and it wouldn't make sense to redirect an artist to a song written and performed by that artist. Chubbles (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it could make sense; I'll avoid the policy links, but article topic notability is standalone, and particularly with music, the song, album, and artist have to be individually notable. The policies are pretty explicit about the fact that the notability of one does not presume the notability of another. That's why we don't have articles on every song on a notable album, nor every album of a notable artist.  So let's posit this question - is it unreasonable to assume that the notability of a group who has never released an album, which almost every story about them talks about their viral song, might say more about the notability of the song than it does about the notability of the group? Another way to look at it is that many artists start out in indie groups that don't go anywhere; that's good for a mention in the artist's article, but not to the point where that former band gets an article of its own.  The group fails NMUSIC, but that doesn't mean the song fails NSONG (although it might; it's a different set of criteria, so sources have to be evaluated differently). MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I maintain that coverage of an artist's work is coverage of that artist. It makes sense for there to be artists whose albums or songs are not standalone articles; it does not make sense for there to be album or song articles for musicians who are considered non-notable - the albums and songs would be non-notable, too. An album review (for instance) is simultaneously coverage of a work of music and of the work of a musician. It is commentary on the cultural and artistic merits of that musician's style. Chubbles (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Except that's not what policy says, nor does it hold in reality. Is "House of the Rising Sun" notable because of The Animals? I'd say no, because the song is more than the artist who sings a version of it. Also, if a song were not notable in and of itself, what reason would there be to cover it? MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said contravenes any policy, and it is consistent with NOTINHERITED. It also follows long, longstanding tradition at WP:MUSIC and WP:AfD, where (for instance) album reviews have always, consistently, been taken as evidence of notability for musical artists. When a third party writes an article about the Animals' cover of "House of the Rising Sun", that is significant coverage of a song (whose author, I guess, is not known), and also significant coverage of The Animals. There's no way to talk just about the recording itself, as if it were somehow disembodied from the band - this is always commentary on the singing and playing of the musicians, in addition to the lyrics and sheet music that is being recorded. Chubbles (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct; I'd also point out that I'm hard-pressed to think of a one-hit wonder we have an article on, because charting meets NMUSIC. I'm not indicating that there's a policy violation; I'm just pointing out that policy doesn't preclude meeting NSONG without meeting NBAND because of the standalone nature of the notability policies. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I think we agree, although the only conceivable example of that I can conjure would be a song whose author is anonymous - as is the case with "House of the Rising Sun". But in the case at hand in this AfD, the coverage is nowhere close to this scenario; the songwriters of "Boss Ass Bitch" and "Fuck That" are known, and they are extensively profiled in some of the sources linked (see the Fader and BET pieces), though admittedly there are some biographical discrepancies between those sources. Chubbles (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, editing article so that it is combo article about the song and the group. Leave further discussion of article name to its talk page. -- do ncr  am  04:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I restructured the article a bit by removing unnecessary section breaks, and there's not much there. Coverage is insufficient to meet GNG & create an encyclopedia entry. WP:NOTNEWS & WP:TOOSOON may apply. Otherwise, promo content on a minor band. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 9 August 2016 (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.