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. WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid reason to keep. However, there has been coverage (e.g. Rolling Stone) which has not been addressed by those arguing for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honor society band[edit]

Unreferenced, possibly hoax non-notable band. GedUK declined my speedy A7 nomination.-- Syrthiss (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a hoax, they are what the article says, a newer band that's opening on the Jonas Brothers summer tour and has been signed under the Jonas Brothers record label type project. With that said, they have a few songs out there but nothing really notable. No albums, no EPs, the only thing they really have is their first single on iTunes. --Rockin56 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just searched and I found that a page for "Honor Society (band)" has been created before and was deleted three times before for reasons of it not being notable enough. I don't think the band is still yet notable for an article.--Rockin56 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the page should not be deleted, as now they are a notable band and should have the oppertunity to have a wikipedia page. Everything said on the page is absolutely true and can be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki master 786 (talk • contribs)

Comment It would be helpful to add more references to the article, which would make it easier for reviewers to sort out the facts. Arakunem^Talk 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The men have had their first charting single ("Where Are You Now "debuted at #162 in Hot Digital Songs this week). This is not quite impressesive, however, they are expected to rise more as the group is gaining more popularity, and as the Bandslam movie release (where their single is from) is getting nearer, they will get more exposure too. I created an article Honor Society (group) which is more like a Wikipedian article should look like. -- Luigi-ish (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (see below) - One of their songs has charted, and thus they pass WP:BAND. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This band is going to be huge. They deserve to have a WIKIPEDIA page. I see many other groups that don't even compare to them. They have been touring as the opening act for the Jonas Brothers. They have a song in "Bandslam" a huge movie opening August 14th. They have a song in the Wizards of Waverly Place movie and they are going to be in Alvin and The Chipmonks:Part 2. Is that enough for your so called HIGH STANDARDS. Give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrock56eb (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:BAND on points ~~2 (though the billboard site only seems to list the first 30... looking still there),~~ 10 (soundtrack albums), ~~and 11 (Radio Disney rotation claimed)~~(can't verify this), and marginal on point 4 for coverage of the tour. Arakunem^Talk 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weakening my keep~~ due to the info on the Billboard chart. I still feel they meet WP:BAND on the other points, albeit rather marginally, based on what they've done so far. Arakunem^Talk 14:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the part on the Disney Radio from consideration as unverified/unverifiable. So what we're left with now is the opening act for the Jonas Brothers, and a song that will be in an Indie movie (and accompanying soundtrack album) opening in 10 days. So the question for discussion, since that's why we're here, is: Does being in this movie and accompanying soundtrack meet "performance in a television show or notable film" (emphasis added). The film is notable enough for its own article, so does the band's participation meet that criteria? I'm considering the film release to be near enough to not invoke WP:CRYSTAL, though I wish the nom had waited until the movie came out so as to know for sure. (Yes the article can easily be re-created, but no sense in executing process-for-process's-sake). Thoughts? Arakunem^Talk 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to full keep, after additional sourcing provided. Arakunem^Talk 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral, leaning to keep (see response to Stuckpages94 below). They're going to be huge. The movie is going to be huge. Excellent. Once they're huge, they will have reliable source coverage and there will be no issue with them being here. In the meantime, charting at 162 (do charts even go that low??) - i don't think that is 'charting' in any meaningful sense. Delete now. Disney rotation claimed - that may get them over the line, if the rotation can be established with a reliable source. I'm not seeing one at present. It can come back later if they actually meet notability criteria otherwise. And before someone says they are in Rolling Stone, they are in a blog post hosted by Rolling Stone. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have been in a PUBLISHED issue of Rolling Stone, now stated as a reference on page, and since the notability requirements just state that a single has to land on the charts, it has done that. They do make the notability criteria from my point of view. And they do have an EP that was released in disc format, I can prove it with a picture of my copy. More reliable sources as to the tour have been listed, please take note of this. Stuckpages94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, according to the link in the article they have been mentioned in a BLOG hosted by Rolling Stone. There's a big difference. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't demonstrate notability, and previous incarnations of the article have been deleted three times in the past few months, as Honor Society (band) clearly shows. A couple of songs on a couple of songs doesn't equal notability in and of itself. If they charted or became hits, then maybe. None of their songs have legitimately charted. Billboard's Digital Songs chart does not go past #40 publicly, and I'm fairly sure that the official chart ends before position 100. Radio Disney, as it is a retailer/company chart, shouldn't be included per WP:CHARTS. If they're notable for opening for the Jonas Brothers tour, then that information can belong on the tour page. As such, none of the keep votes demonstrate any legitimate points to keep the article right now. Later, if they chart, then sure. But right now, no, sorry to say. SKS (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Their gonna be big we might as well in fact theirs this page of an artist who played on stephen colbert and their less sucsesful than honor societyKing007ofrock (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)King007ofrock[reply]

Delete - After finding this, it appears as if they haven't charted at all. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I have now deleted the claimed charting info from the article, as it contradicts billboard's own data. This band has not charted, and all other sources do not appear to be reliable. Still support delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not going to suddenly collapse tomorrow. When a band is notable and has actually charted, it will have verifiable sources noting that and then it can have an article. That is not now for this band. talking birds 23:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right, so all of you who are disputing their charting, you have to pick up the magazine for the FULL CHART. Second: and this one goes out to Hamiltonstone in particular, if you look at the page, at the references, you will see that I have provided a citation for the issue in which they appear. So, since they have charted, they do meet the notability requirements. In addition, previously deleted pages are not cause for deletion. At the time of deletion, the band did not meet notability guidelines, whereas they do now. And I'm sorry to those of you who are giving keep votes, but I have to agree that "they're gonna be big" is a lousy reason, and does tend to overshadow any valid reasons given afterwards; so cut it out. Also, I have checked to make sure that the page does not claim anything false, and it doesn't. I will not revert Hamiltonstone's edit until this issue has been resolved, because that's just immature. The reference given for Honor Society opening for the Jonas Brothers is an issue of Rolling Stone, thus putting the band in print.Stuckpages94 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I have now added Honor Society's recent television appearances along with links verifying the appearances. I have also added their performance at the Miss Teen USA pageant, citing the Miss Universe press release about the event.Stuckpages94 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Stuckpages94 for working on the article. I am just about ready to switch to keep. I'm willing to accept that the band was covered in Rolling Stone print magazine, assuming good faith, but the original citation when I came to this deletion discussion was to a blog (hosted by RS), that wasn't adequate. The new ref seems OK. The charting claim faces a similar problem. We need a reliable source. When "Honor Society" was entered into the search engine at Billboard's site, it produced no results. If there is a specific full print copy chart, with a date and a page, it would be great if someone would get that and provide it, at which point, please do go ahead and revert my removal of the charting claim. I'm happy for the article to stay with reliable references; just not otherwise. Incidentally, and I think Stuckpages94 may have this covered, should not this page be at "Honor Society (group)" rather than "Honor Society band"?

FYI, User:Luigi-ish took care of the move to Honor Society (group) already. Arakunem^Talk 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hamiltonstone, I would be more than happy if the article got moved to keep, but with a tag indicating need for more sources. I am trying to get someone to give me the citation itself for the charting, but am having very little luck. Also, I checked the WP:NM guidelines and it says that the ensemble has to meet only one of the criteria to be considered notable. I can understand if the issue is that evidence for meeting said criteria is weak, therefore requiring the band to meet multiple criteria. And I think Hamiltonstone was referring to the title of the article, not just the page location. Is this correct?Stuckpages94 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. You are also right: it would make it easier to tick this article off as a keep if the charting thing was resolved, but I expect it will be a keep anyway. The fact that no-one has come up with the actual chart reference makes the claim look suspicious, though i am happy to assume good faith - that someone has seen this claim sonewhere, or saw the chart, added the info in, but has since moved on, or doesn't have access to the publication any more. Anyway, I'm sure this will get sorted out one way oranother. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, what they have accomplished so far does not make them notable. Triplestop x3 18:44, 7 August 2009 (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.