Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC3 (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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UC3
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails all twelve of the faily lax criteria for notability of musicians/ensembles. Notability (music) One would think their Hooters association would give them a decent amount of press, but it hasn't. Fixer23 (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete why would anybody waste there time fixing this, if any information will be removed later on. --Rob (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And in this case there is no information to improve the article with.Fixer23 (talk) 06:34, 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) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Below is some articles published on this group. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Now there's Hooters the restaurant and Hooters the girl band" By REBECCA LOUIE, 27 November 2003, Times Union.
 * "It's a real hoot between the buffet and the beer ; Restaurant chain promotes its girl group" by JOHN PETRICK, 23 November 2003, The Record
 * "UC3 TRIO HOOTERS & HOLLERS" By DAN AQUILANTE, 20 November 2003, New York Post
 * "HOOTERS ADDS 3 SONGBIRDS " by REBECCA LOUIE, 19 November 2003, New York Daily News
 * "Hooters music on tap: restaurant chain signs deal with trio UC3." by Mitchell, Gail, 8 November 2003, Billboard
 * That's great! Why weren't they included in the article?Fixer23 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because nobody cares. --Rob (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to take your sour attitude somewhere else. This is precisely why your "support" for the deletion of the three articles were not taken seriously. Because you're bitterness with the way you perceive Wikipedia is transparent, compounded by the fact that you seem not to know the slightest about Wikipedia policies (however basic they are) and base your edits on your own whims. You have not added anything of use to the three ongoing discussions and have been blurring the matter with tangential arguments.Fixer23 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Because nobody cares"? Way to assume bad faith! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - On this one I'm undecided about the group's notability. But Duffbeerforme found some sources, probably without much effort, which should have been done by the nominator. The nominator could also place those sources in the article instead of condemning the article because someone else hasn't done it. Meanwhile, this AfD and a related AfD have degenerated into useless arguments about Wikipedia overall, which has nothing to do with whether a particular article is notable. People are forgetting WP:BEFORE (especially #2, #9) and WP:ATA. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Posting my reply from the other discussion. 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) 07:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I'm curious how much do you have to "pay-per-view" this?    --Rob (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not finding the articles I found does not show a lack of BEFORE #2 as a good faith search of google would not have found them all. Yes I found them without much effort but I used a seperate database (Factive) which is not easily available to all. #9 may have found one and that could have been easily missed. BEFORE may have been done here and I see no reason to believe it was not. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per duffbeerforme. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication that this group meets WP:NMUSIC, and coverage of it seems to be simply a short-lived publicity blitz in Oct/Nov 2003. No indication of sustained coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about WP:MUSIC #1? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a short-lived publicity blitz (likely the result of Hooters looking for good PR) is hardly particularly reliable or significant. Does any of the coverage from this period amount to anything beyond a puff-piece (I can't tell as they're all behind paywalls)? And what degree of independence of coverage do they show from each other? (Certainly the timing of the coverage leads me to be suspicious.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, do we even know when/how UC3 was founded? I may be cynical, but I suspect the answer is 'in late 2003, by Hooters' PR department.' HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being cynical. "Hooters will produce and promote the R&B/hip-hop female trio UC3 in partnership with Billboard Star Productions (not affiliated with Billboard magazine or its sister companies)." (ref Billboard) This was an open and blatant publicity stunt. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest that a publicity stunt that did not garner WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is not an appropriate topic for an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   chatter 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hrafn. Fails WP:BAND.  Snotty Wong   chatter 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shows to go you that even a corporate PR blitz can't get you any coverage in secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:27, 30 November 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.