Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alice 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Alice Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Band with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, this amounts to "band who existed", and is sourced entirely to primary sources and WP:BLOGS rather than real media coverage. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed and had a Myspace page; RS coverage supporting an NMUSIC pass must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is poor, but please start looking at something other than the article itself before bringing things to AfD. This group had three minor hit singles and a top 60 album, and at least some of the coverage that they received is still online, as well as coverage of the duo they became when one of them left: , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see here: according to that chart archive, the album debuted at #55 on the charts in its first week, declined to #78 in its second, and then bellyflopped off the charts never to be heard from again after just two weeks. And the singles all did the same: two made a quick debut at an unimpressive chart position in the 45-70 range, fell to the 80s in the second week, and then gone gone gone — and the third didn't even manage that, starting in the 80s in its first week and then immediately dying without a second week. This is hardly impressive chart performance we're talking about here. And, as always, WP:NMUSIC explicitly states that nominal passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an inclusion freebie in and of itself — regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article can claim that its topic meets, it's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim that determines whether it passes or fails NMUSIC, not the mere assertion of the claim in and of itself.
 * So let's actually look at what you've shown for sourcing: #2 = 80-word blurb, not assisting WP:GNG because not substantive. #3 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about the head of their record label, not assisting GNG because not about them. #4 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a songwriter, not assisting GNG because not about them. #5 = 78-word blurb, not assisting WP:GNG because not substantive. #6 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a related band that formed after the band that's the subject of this article broke up, not assisting GNG because not about this band (notability is not inherited) and because it's a Q&A-style interview which represents Nugent and Belle talking about themselves. #7 = the closest thing to a substantive source that's been shown, but it serves only to verify that they exist rather than actually offering any noteworthy information that would actually pass NMUSIC — so while it counts toward GNG more than any other source does, it doesn't carry GNG all by itself as the article's only GNG-worthy source.
 * Not for the first time, I remind you that we're not after "reliable sources have provided one-line acknowledgements that the band existed"; we're after "reliable sources have published substantive coverage about the band accomplishing something encyclopedic". This is far from the first time I've seen you try to argue that a musical artist or band had to be kept because it was possible to find blurbs and one-line acknowledgements of their existence in articles about other things or other people — but we're looking for substantive coverage, not cursory verification of existence. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They had two singles and an album that made the top 75. We're looking for encyclopedic relevance, backed up by evidence - the GNG isn't everything. Personally I feel that an artist that made the top 75 in the UK is highly likely to be worthy of inclusion. If you don't think these are enough for notability, that's your opinion, but given that you found absolutely nothing, or more likely (as your deletion rationale suggests) didn't even look, it's a bit rich to be criticising me for simply listing what I found from a web search. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, GNG is everything. SNGs do not create an exemption from having to source the article over GNG, but merely serve to clarify what kinds of things can get an article kept if they're supported by GNG-qualifying sources. NMUSIC explicitly states that nominal passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an exemption from actually having to get the topic over GNG — it's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim that determine whether the claim is passed or failed, not the mere assertion of an NMUSIC claim in and of itself. Peaking in the low end of the Top 75, for instance, is not compelling enough to exempt a band from having to be sourceable to more than just glancing namechecks of its existence — it's high enough if the article is sourced properly, but if the band isn't the subject of enough substantive coverage to pass GNG, then NMUSIC is still failed as NMUSIC explicitly requires that GNG is also being passed in tandem. And no, my deletion rationale does not "suggest that I didn't even look"; it suggests, because this is the truth, that I did look, and in fact found some of the same weak sources you proffered above, but utterly failed to find anything substantive enough to actually satisfy what's required (which your sources above also fail to do.) Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misreading Notability (which states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline"). --Michig (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not misreading anything whatsoever. NMUSIC explicitly states that its notability criteria cannot be passed merely by asserting passage (music being one of those areas where PR flunkies have a marked tendency to inflate the publicity hype well past the actual reality, such as by claiming "hit" status for any song that ever got played on the radio at all even if it got played once and charted nowhere), but are passed only when a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of coverage exists to properly verify the truth of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not require WP:GNG to be satisfied. Verifiability and finding a lot of significant coverage are two entirely different things. --Michig (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that WP:V requires GNG to be satisfied; I said that NMUSIC requires GNG to be satisfied. The ability to nominally verify that a band exists is not what gets them into Wikipedia; the ability to reference the article to "a lot of significant coverage" is, and NMUSIC is failed if that significant coverage isn't there. Regardless of what the article claims to be true about them, NMUSIC is not passed until significant RS coverage can be shown to properly support the article — NMUSIC explicitly says that very thing right in its own introduction, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It says nothing of the sort. It says that satisfying the criteria must be reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing of facts does not require significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it most certainly does say something of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete After reading through the above debate, it is clear to me that WP:NMUSIC doesn't save this article, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified charting satisfies WP:MUSIC which is sufficiant to satisfy WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It takes more than the aboility to nominally verify that an NMUSIC criterion has technically been passed for an article about a band to be considered notable under NMUSIC — no matter what criterion a band claims to pass, it's the depth and quality of reliable sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article that determines whether the notability claim passes or fails NMUSIC. The sources are what we measure, not how impressive the unsourced or poorly sourced claims sound. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And Michig provided a quality source that supports the notability claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. "Unimpressive chart position, sourced only to that chart's self-published database of its own chart positions" is still an NMUSIC fail if the band aren't the subject of enough substantive coverage in media to pass WP:GNG. NMUSIC #1 is the one criterion that every band or musician always has to satisfy without exception; criteria 2-12 are only considered to be passed if they're supported by the volume and quality of sourcing needed to satisfy #1, but cannot confer an exemption from having to pass #1. For instance, a band does not pass the "touring" criterion just because you can show concert listings directories, or the primary source websites of the tour venues, as proof that they toured — they pass the touring criterion when media are writing content about the tour. And a band does not pass the charting criterion just because a chart position can technically be referenced to that chart itself — they pass the charting criterion when media are writing content about them having charted. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not true. The guideline states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria..." No mention whatsoever of having to meet criterion 1. And a chart company's own website is perfectly good for verifying chart placings - significant coverage is not required for verification, the criterion is satisfied if the chart position can be verified. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Michig - The band had notable singles and a notable album.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now expanded with more refs. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2017 (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.