Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (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   no consensus. slakr \ talk / 09:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes Sir Boss
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL uni band, completely devoid of significant coverage and notability. Was apparently created with WP:COI issues. The last time we were here it was also deleted by and. As an aside, a demonstration of how not to approve draft articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The band passes:


 * Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; :note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
 * Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country Valoem   talk   contrib  17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Signature copied from "Barney has been involved" below, timestamp may not be accurate. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including: FMV Magazine and Female First coverage from BBC: BBC and BBC, and coverage from Huffington Post. There are also multiple other citations from less RS sources which can be used along side with RS to establish notability such as Drunken Werewolf, and Entertainment Focus. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Signature copied from "Barney has been involved" below, timestamp may not be accurate. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Barney has been involved in personal attacks here. The version we see now has passed AfC. Barney does not understand the term spam and was warned by multiple editors for personal attacks seen here. The COI attack is completely out of line. My edit history clearly shows no COI. It is an ANI incident now and possible bad faith. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All of which, if it were true (which it isn't), is entirely irrelevant and does nothing to confirm the notability of this unimportant student music group. Please do try to stay on topic and not whine about personal attacks, when you haven't got a decent argument to put forward. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BAND. We have mix of trivial coverage (about other people/bands) from reliable sources and in-depth coverage from unreliable sources, but what we're lacking is non-trivial coverage from multiple, reliable sources as our notability policies require. Note that the other notability criteria, such as touring and prominence, also require reliable sourcing. Maybe at a later time, but the sources don't meet our requirements right now. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BAND, no evidince of notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Clerical note Some edits have been moved around and modified without updating the timestamps. The timestamps in comments should not be relied upon as accurate for the entire comment to which they seem to apply.  Check the edit history if this becomes important. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm the WP:AFC reviewer to analyze contents and sources of the article against Wikipedia notability guideline for inclusion and some other WP:PG, and to find the submission appropriate to move to the articles mainspace. WP:COI is not a reason of deletion, neither does the last AFD discussion (see, WP:DEL).


 * Why it should be kept and we better contribute our efforts to improve the present article, because WP:BAND, yes, the same reason, cited above for deletion. WP:BAND says,
 * "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"


 * This coverage alone, helps the subject to reach #10 and #12 criteria of WP:BAND. FMV magazine, Huff. post, Femalefirst.co.uk, Entertainment-focus.co.uk are the wp:secondary, wp:independent and wp:reliable sources that helps the subject to reach the #1 criteria of WP:BAND and as well as, the WP:GNG standard.


 * I notice, there are some differences between some editors here, as such my edit to delete the redirect and move the article from AFC to main space was reverted (diff. link) and the AFC submission, I reviewed was tagged for speedy deletion (diff. link). Here, speedy declined for obvious reasons by an admin (diff. link) but it didn't stop. We now see the article here, at AFD (diff. link). I've provided diff. links, because it looks like a WP:DUCK, that User:Barney the barney barney has some differences with the User:Valoem and as a result of which community is engaged [perhaps] into an unnecessary discussion. And, interesting enough, I've found, most of the times, it is the experienced editors who violate WP:NPA.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator has made some questionable comments on Tokyogirl79's talk page stating:


 * "I'm afraid that 's "high road" is somewhat below the epic alpine heights of mine, and I shall be staying out of this and I am confident that I will be vindicated by the deletion of this pathetic article" which suggests a personal motive as the reason for deletion. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]] ) 21:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BAND criterion 12. This band was the subject of a significant broadcast segment on BBC Radio 1. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * Delete. Google Trends shows that “Yes Sir Boss” is less popular than Potassium ferrocyanide.[]  Wikipedia should not be giving free advertising to a rinky-dink garage band.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment since when do we use "popularity" to gauge notability?  Flat Out  let's discuss it  22:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You’ll note that WP:BAND says that a band “may” be notable if it meets certain criteria. WP:BAND does not say that a band is automatically entitled to an article if it meets the criteria.  Also, if you’ll read the final bullet point under WP:GNG you will  note that it says that “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included”.  Ultimately it comes down to an editorial decision and consensus, and as editors trying to find a consensus we can use other methods to determine if a band should get an article, and one of those methods can very well be Google Trends.


 * Consider this; Atomik Harmonik (an exceptionally obscure turbo-folk group from Slovenia) was 26 times more popular than “Yes Sir Boss” is right now when it received a Wikipedia article in 2005.[] 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What policy are you invoking? Whatever you're citing is irrelevant to notability only reliable sources matter. Valoem   talk   contrib  01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just quoted a policy that indicates that reliable sources do not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia and you tell me that “only reliable sources matter”? Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Also you should note that h-indexes are routinely used in deletion discussions, so the consideration of factors beyond just reliable secondary sources is by no means unprecedented.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:BAND.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  22:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing there (or even here) that currently meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. To address an above comment, AND at the risk of someone invoking WP:OTHERCRAPTHANKFULLYDOESNTEXIST, I've personally been the "subject of a significant broadcast segment on BBC", and I'm not even notable enough for an article.  Some sources are from the college, others are the band website, others are just plain non-significant to deem as WP:RS for such a tremendously minor band.  the panda ₯’  23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON; time will tell. Today, does not meet WP:BAND.  Mini  apolis  23:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what part of WP:BAND does this article fail? It seems like a plea for WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. Perhaps if Panda's band has the same coverage it may warrant an article on Wikipedia, show me some sources and I may write one for you :) Valoem   talk   contrib  00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * People here, !voting delete, because they want the article to get deleted. Their !votes are either, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:ASSERTN. It is an another AfD, where I'm amazed to see admins casting their vote (not !vote). Like above some person repeated, "Delete, because does not meet WP:Band".


 * I invite them all to review the article and related notability criteria and sources cited in the article again, to draw a conclusion. The article is about a BAND, therefore, WP:BAND would apply here, not any other, as such WP:BIO or WP:MUSICIAN.
 * WP:BAND says, A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given, and the subject does meet, not one but at least two:
 * #12 - "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." - Yes, Click here to verify.
 * #1 - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" - FMV magazine, Huff. post, Femalefirst.co.uk, Entertainment-focus.co.uk, BBC, are neither from colleges nor from the band website. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  00:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:BAND does not say "A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given". WP:BAND says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria"  GB fan 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - And this is really what makes this band non-notable? At least talk like an experienced editor. By your argument "no band is notable on wikipedia" because notability guideline says, "may be". Ridiculous, indeed! Let me enlighten you a little, no Wikipedia notability guideline directly says, subject is notable for meeting a criteria. All notability guideline (go review) says, "may be" or "presumed". I never witnessed this kind of argument in any AfD, I ever have been involved. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said the band was not notable, I am still assessing and have not made up my mind if I believe the band is notable. You are correct that no notability guideline says that a subject is notable.  These are all editorial decisions based on the evidence available about the particular subject.  You misrepresented what WP:BAND says in your statement above when you said: "WP:BAND says, A band is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria given"  I was just pointing out to you that WP:BAND does not say what you claimed it says.  GB fan 15:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment was a bit confusing because an IP has already cited this, "may be" as an argument against inclusion of the subject. Your earlier argument was some-what similar. Coming back to the point, if all notability guideline says, "may be" and "presumed" and we do follow and have been following the same, then it is the same case, where subject qualifies for inclusion. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It appears to me that this band passes WP:GNG based on the multiple RS reviews cited above plus the BBC broadcast coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BAND and per DangerousPanda. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:46, 25 April 2014 (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.