Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooh & the Inspirations


 * 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 delete. The lack of reliable sources is a compelling argument, see WP:V.  Sandstein  10:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pooh & the Inspirations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two low-charting albums on a minor chart does not help the subject meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I deprodded this article because the band had two albums chart fairly highly on the Billboard Top Gospel Albums chart in 2003 and 2004; this satisfies WP:MUSIC. I don't get the TOOSOON argument. Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And so how did that help them to meet GNG? Charting is only a clue that, per WP:MUSICBIO, may make them notable. Too soon because they clearly don't have anyone other than you who cares to write about them. Once again, charting does no mean they are notable, only that they may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Entities that meet a subject-specific notability requirement do not also need to meet the GNG - if they did, the specific guidelines would be superfluous. Chubbles (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Entities that meet a subject-specific notability criteria may be notable. Every subject-specific notability criteria has been modified over the past few years to make that clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no less true for the GNG; subjects that meet the GNG may also be judged not worthy of inclusion. But I see no good reason to exclude this particular group despite the fact that it meets WP:MUSIC's guidelines. Chubbles (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about, if we've found nothing to say about this group we don't need an article about them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete they may have charted, but there is literally nothing out there about them. Searching their name and various other keywords yielded literally nothing even close to an RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Billboard is an RS, and it's a concrete and independent indication of their success in the genre. This is, ultimately, why the SNGs exist - they indicate that a group has reached a threshold of importance for niche scenes and genres (especially those that do not have as robust presses as e.g. indie rock does), for older acts (whose Google hits aren't going to be as robust - how many gospel magazines' archives do we expect to be in Gnews?), and for areas where WP:SYSTEMIC issues persist. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "systemic". 2003 is recent enough that there should be at least somewhat of an internet footprint. Billboard's website verifies the chart positions, but it does not give biographical, extensive, third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all true. Black gospel is very poorly covered here in comparison to other genres, and a great deal of circa-2003 music literature has rotted right off the face of the internet; I can't tell you how many 404s I'm finding when I go back to look at music journalism of the mid-2000s. The band does not need to also meet WP:GNG to be notable if it meets an SNG; that would make the SNGs entirely moot. Chubbles (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SNGs are not ironclad. They are not 100% foolproof. Logic should dictate that WP:GNG usurps SNG, not the other way around. You can't just stand here and say "but sources might possibly maybe exist somewhere, I'm not sure because they could have just 404'd" isn't enough. The WP:BURDEN is yours. Can you prove that there are sources instead of just guessing? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the difference between us here is a deeply philosophical one, and not one based in the facts of the case; this isn't the venue to hash that out. I'll just point out that this is a charting group (twice), and that this is verifiable and supported with reliable sources, such that it meets WP:MUSIC. That, on my reading, meets the threshold of notability, and so is a properly encyclopedic topic. Chubbles (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'll point out that no one in the music industry cares enough about them to write about them, so neither should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This has gotten ridiculous. WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS does not discern such a chart hierarchy as seems to be implied by Walter Görlitz above. This is very clear. The fact is that they have charted in a Billboard chart. Let this be judged on its merits and policy by other participants, as there are clearly two views at question and nothing further can currently be argued. PK650 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. First of all, Billboard is not some "minor chart" per WP:CHART (be it in any genre). Clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO c.#2, and Billboard is a reliable source in itself; in fact, it is the gold standard. On another note, I have no idea why TOOSOON is quoted! Best, PK650 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You've characterized the point. Billboard hosts multiple charts. Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100 are major charts. With respect to "religious music", Christian Albums and Christian Songs are their equivalent. Top Gospel Albums is a minor chart. I would only expect the No. 1 entries to be notable, but this chart does not qualify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We have never held that market- and genre-specific charts "don't count" for WP:MUSIC; they still demonstrate a wider popularity/prominence consistent with encyclopedic importance. Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes we have. Many AfDs point-out that they are not the national chart but a minor chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, I am not spending enough time at AfD. They are most certainly the national chart - they are published by Billboard! But again, I think this is really putting the cart before the horse - the whole point of these guidelines is to illustrate what it means to be notable. Billboard charts do that, including the market- and genre-specific charts. Even minor charts (e.g., a local or regional radio chart or iTunes charts) sometimes do that, though we have a general guideline that minor charts do not do so merely on their own. Nevertheless, they can be indicators of what the notability guideline is a means to and end for - of wider prominence or importance consistent with inclusion in an encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, the guidelines are to suggest possibly criteria that may result in the subject being notable. They are not a coronation of notability. Notability only arrives when people take note of the subject. In this context, that means they are written about. If their charting does not get them press, they're not notable. And you do need to spend more time on the project as single-source chart are not minor, they're WP:BADCHARTS. A minor chart is one that is not one of the main charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Billboard genre charts are not WP:BADCHARTS, nor should they be. Woe to us if you had to reach the Hot 100 or the Top 200 album chart to even possibly be considered notable for charting! Chubbles (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, iTunes, etc. are the BADCHARTS. The minor charts on Billboard are just minor charts. And yes, woe to any article were the only reason it is on the project is that it failed to reach one of the major charts and there's no other coverage of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Semantic quibbling aside, this all strikes me as mistaking the rule for the reason, but I think I've shed well more than enough ink here for the time being. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Semantic quibbling aside, this all strikes me as mistaking the rule for the reason, as the reason that the rule exists is the assumption that charting will reveal something about the band in additional sources, and that clearly has not happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That...is exactly the opposite of the reason. As I said to another editor in this very discussion... It's clear that the difference between us here is a deeply philosophical one, and not one based in the facts of the case. By now, I'm sure it is abundantly clear to onlookers what your position is, and what is mine. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is exactly the reason why the word "may" is italicized in the guideline. There are two editors who say you're missing the point. Sometime, you may realize that's the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The scales can't fall from my eyes soon enough. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't have references. There is so little interest in this article that no one can be bothered to even comment on this AfD.Dorama285 22:33, 7 February 2020 (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.