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)[reply]

Yes Sir Boss[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yes Sir Boss (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)

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 Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) and McMarcoP (talk · contribs). As an aside, a demonstration of how not to approve draft articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Favonian (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)[reply]
"I'm afraid that Valoem (talk · contribs)'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)[reply]
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.[[2]] 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
@GB fan: - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (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.
More