Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghastly Ones

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 keep‎. Consensus is a Weak Keep but Keep it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly Ones[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Local and part-time band who have a claim to semi-fame in placing a song in a SpongeBob episode. That song placement is only discussed in esoteric cartoon discussion boards, while the band has no reliable coverage and is only visible at typical streaming and retail services, with occasional fan-written reviews. The article is currently dependent on Discogs.com entries and a dead streaming link, and I was unable to find anything better. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also the deletion discussion for one of the members of the band: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Immel. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just). Via the Wikipedia Library, some review articles in mainstream print newspapers from the 90s: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The SpongeBob connection is confirmed here: [5]. On the whole I think this passes GNG. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for tracking down those obscure sources. I'm not the combative type of nominator because I don't have to look at the article ever again, so I will merely submit a counterpoint: Three of those newspaper articles are actually brief album reviews that have little to no biographical info on the band (which should be the point of the band article here), and mostly admit to noticing the album because it was on Rob Zombie's label. That may run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. The fourth newspaper (Orange County) only mentions this band briefly in a general article about their genre. Meanwhile, I submit that the SpongeBob placement runs afoul of WP:ONEVENT. With this additional info, the band could be deemed just barely by the thinnest possible shave not non-notable, which could be stretched into "notable", but that's not particularly inspiring. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems entirely combative. Re oneevent, 1, we don't have an individual here, 2, you can't say because the spongebob placement is one event we'll ignore everything else, doesn't work like that, we don't say because "Bruce Springsteen has taken a nasty fall on stage" is oneevent we'll delete the whole article on him. Re only being album reviews, You can't really seperate coverage of the bands work from coverage of the band. Write an article about what the band has done. Re the Rob Zombie connection, yes the got noticed in part because of their record label (and that's why we have criteria like WP:BAND#5) but it is still coverage of them and their work. re notinherited, there has been no argument of the type they worked with Rob Zombie so they are notable, your dismissal is closer to a notinherited argument than anything else duffbeerforme (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "may" or "merely" multiple times in my comment, and conceded that I don't have to look at the article ever again. Your statement "Seems entirely combative" is unintentionally ironic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weakest of !keeps. The newspapers cited above seem ok, not substantial but they look good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the sources identified by Barnards.tar.gz, I'd note that there is some substantial coverage in industry periodicals in the context of the band's role in Rob Zombie's decision to set up Zombie-A-Go-Go Records, e.g. CMJ New Music Monthly and Billboard. (The CMJ article specifically credits Zombie's experience watching the band with his decision to set up the label.) So that's two mildly significant events that have occasioned independent coverage in reliable sources that yields a decent amount of content for an article (which, to be clear, is just a more straightforward way of saying that this appears to meet WP:GNG.) I don't feel like losing this article would be a terrible loss for the project but it seems like there's enough to work with here that deletion is not justified. I don't believe the WP:NOTINHERITED essay has much bearing here -- it seems directed to an argument like "there's lots of sigcov of Rob Zombie, therefore this band that he interacted with is also notable", which isn't what's going on here. -- Visviva (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2023 (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.