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 both. The consensus is that both subjects fail our notability guidelines. Additional sources were identified, during the AfD, but the consensus remained against notability for both articles. I should be happy to userfy if an editor wishes to develop either page, further, in user space. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edubb[edit]

Edubb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Research sources are also found here: Images
• Billboard Magazine article I.M. Records Edubb as a performing group at the super producers panel hosted by ASCAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band; very scant press coverage, major music never charted, no major awards. Delete per WP:BAND --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The music of the band has charted, I have also added the reference to the MTV Music charts for calender week 6 2012.--Regeek (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including an article about their song. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whooty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment The subject meets the WP:BAND policy, since it has been placed in rotation nationally by major music television networks. It meets the WP:Songs as well since the All Music Search Engine is quoted as a reliable Source, the band and the referenced album is found there.--Regeek (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This group's page is just being set up, I am sorry but a math major is not a good fit to edit a band page. I am sure your research skills are ok but by your comments, you have no idea the impact of having not one but SEVERAL music videos in rotation on the MTV (Viacom) family of shows, nor do you understand the relevance of a band of this nature within the music industry. Unlike the street corner rappers, these gentlemen have created enough buzz, not just with their more than 8 MILLION YOUTUBE VIEWS BUT HAVE SEVERAL MAJOR PLACEMENTS FOR THEIR MUSIC ON BRANDED TELEVISION SHOWS. Please refrain from using your limited understanding of the music world to delete this post...allow the group's team to finish competing the page. You will change your mind if you have any understanding of how the music business...NOT MATH...works. Not only that, this group has had enough international impact on the entertainment industry at large with the creation of the term "Whooty", that they were awarded a TRADEMARK for the word Whooty which they built up into a globally trending topic. -- Jdobypr (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of advice - arguments here have to be backed by our policies and guidelines. I don't have an opinion on this article, but if you want to fight for it, I'd recommend you try to prove it meets one or more of the criteria of WP:BAND. For instance, if you can provide evidence that it has been placed in rotation by MTV, that might help, or might not. I don't know enough about music or MTV to say for certain. What I do know is that Youtube views don't cut it. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - I think the most telling reason to delete is that, despite all the impact, relevance, buzz, and trend supposedly associated with these topics, neither topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain stand alone articles. If people are making a bunch of noise and no one else cares to write about it, why should Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a text based media and that text merely is a representative survey of the relevant literature. If there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that are indendent of Edubb and/or Whooty, what is it that Wikipedia editors will put in the Wikipedia article? There's nothing there! You can't maintain a Wikipedia article on hopes and dreams. You need text from which to develop the representative survey of the relevant literature. Since neither article meets WP:GNG, delete both. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both -- fail WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, I can find no reliable sources on which to build an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The band has received coverage from notable sources in the past and present. Another notable source from MTV New Releases news article on Mar 7 2006, in which the Album Don't Flex finds mention. Source: "New Releases: Juvenile, Matisyahu, Lil Wayne, Bad Religion, Stereolab, Public Enemy, Mogwai & More". The group has also received coverage from Flavour Magazine regarding their "Whooty" music "Edubb and their Whooty music". Please do not delete my contribution as I believe notability has been established and will through my upcoming additions to the article be solidified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - that is some coverage, it is not "significant coverage" as is required to demonstrate notability.--ukexpat (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Comment - just so that I may grasp a better understanding, MTV News releases, MTV Network sources and official releases with Billboard charting artists are not considered reliable sources or do not establish notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The MTV article is reliable, but the coverage for Edubb is not considered "significant" because the only mention of the group is made in passing (ie, within a list of albums).  Gongshow ^Talk 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advert. Closest this comes to coverage is "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" but that type is not included in WP:BAND#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. No non-trivial coverage found in reliable sources; subjects do not appear to meet WP:BAND and WP:NSONGS, respectively.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Meets WP:BAND Has been placed in rotation nationally by major music television network. Meets WP:Songs All Music Search Engine quoted as reliable Source, the band and the referenced album is found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  One !vote per person. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting help, I have revisited the guidelines and the WP guidelines for WP Band are met as well as WP Songs. Addionally I have added second sources and references. Would someone please give it another review I would be most grateful.--Regeek (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable Sources have been provided within the article, the band has received coverage by various magazines and online blogs including print publications such as Ozone Mag, Billboard Magazine and Flavour Magazine. The band meets the WP:Band and WP:Song guidelines as they are in regular rotation across national and international television networks and meet the notability guideline for having created and trademarked a word, which is widely used accross the world. A simple search for the word "Whooty" shows well over 1 Mio. results.

Considering that the band owns all rights to such a word I believe notability has been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Registering a trademark establishes exactly nothing, since anyone can do that. Hairhorn (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is absolutely correct, but branding the trademarked name to receive this much notability across the world establishes everything, in particular notability.--Regeek (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.