Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marmite Sisters (2nd 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 merge to Graham Barnfield.  Sandstein  19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Marmite Sisters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Filtered google searches offer no significant coverage in any RS. One notable member is not sufficient to pass WP:NBAND#6. No other criteria of WP:NBAND apparently met. — swpb T 19:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Graham Barnfield. The main source appears to be a print source, and given this group was active in the 80s and 90s, I am not surprised that Google is light.  I'd AGF on the print source.  At the very least, merge and preserve the article history in case someone wants to do more work on it.   Montanabw (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: the "print source" that I believe is being referred to above, "The Mish-MASH Dictionary of Marmite", is about the food spread Marmite; there is no indication to be found that it even mentions this band, and we obviously can't "AGF" that it offers significant coverage of the band, because 1) It's given as a "see also" entry, not a reference, so even the article itself isn't claiming it supports notability; and 2) as we all know, AGF is about editor behavior, and is a complete non-sequitur when it comes to establishing the validity of references. One would expect someone using the book as an argument for keeping to have checked on that first, since it totally invalidates the case being made. Regardless, the count of reliable+significant coverage sources remains at zero. I would remind everyone that misrepresentation is not only likely to result in trouble (especially when it's a pattern), it's also a very unsuccessful strategy for garnering support in an AfD, where, of course, the validity of arguments is what matters. — swpb T 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again with the personalized commentary. 1) was enough.  2) is a personal attack.  I still say merge, no sense leaving a redlink for the article to be created again.    Montanabw (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The redlink is not a viable concern either, since, as you can check for yourself, there is exactly one link in mainspace to this band, and it's from the band's one apparently independently notable member. The value of the edit history is the same as the likelihood that this decades-ago band will gain future notability; that is to say, not high enough to be worth discussing. — swpb T 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging helps preserve article history and avoids AfD, round 3, 4 and 5. I'm moving my !vote to Merge, as I feel that is the most appropriate outcome here.   Montanabw (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just explained that there is no value in preserving this article's history or content, because it's not notable. You didn't respond to that at all. You've still given no valid reason for your position. — swpb T 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You mistake content for subject. An article subject has to be notable; article content merely has to be verifiable, a much lower bar. If content is properly merged into another, already-notable, article, there is no requirement that such content be "notable", but there is a requirement that it is attributed. Does that clarify it for you? --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 13:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Graham Barnfield. The band isn't independently notable, IMHO, but it's quite usual to include some details of a band in the biography of a notable band-member. Not all of the article content needs to be merged in, but the MusicBrainz source is often used in music articles as reliable for discographies, etc. so there's definitely enough verifiable material to make a merge with attribution worthwhile. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Having reviewed the edit history, I was surprised to find that of the 55 edits, not a single one by a registered editor added any content. It seems that any of the content may be merged without requiring attribution in this case because we cannot accurately attribute to IPs.--RexxS (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed my !vote to Merge, above.  Montanabw (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Graham Barnfield. They were a bit of a laugh but never really amounted to much, with only a few releases on small indie labels, usually their own if I remember correctly, but as there's a mention of the band on the Barnfield page a redirect would be in order. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 24 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.