Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Vicious

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vicious

[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)

Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mccapra (talk • contribs) 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the best idea for this would be to MERGE this into another article, or downgrade to a section. There are four associated acts that would lead this to be considered notable, but while the band undoubtedly had no degree of hype for a one year period, it has not sustained. Spotify plays for the band are less than 1,000. The band website has not been updated in 10 years, it isn't mentioned in interviews or press anywhere.

It is only relevant as a "resume item" for other more notable endeavors of the members. The notable related acts include: Bootblacks (http://www.bootblacks.net) (no page), Conan Neutron and the Secret Friends (notable touring and recording act with association with larger notoriety), Replicator (still cited as influential and relevant), and Household Gods . I concluded while listing the associated acts of Household Gods (Pajo's alone is exhaustive!) that ten years out, this band page isn't notable enough to keep around. Top pocket man (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that a topic that was once notable can become not notable is if a source magically unwrites itself, so the nomination doesn't make sense. I doubt that the subject was ever notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagreed, this nomination totally makes sense!! I don't appreciate being nitpicked on this. This was an up and coming band that flamed out and disappeared. The choices are rewrite the article, merge or delete. Rewriting takes resources better used on notable topics, there isn't anything to merge with... hence: Speedy deletion. Top pocket man (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (despite an incorrect nomination) - The nomination's reason is indeed nonsensical because of the WP:NOTTEMPORARY rule. I considered recommending that the AfD be closed for procedural reasons due to that nonsensical argument. Upon investigating, I recommend to the nominator that you adjust the text above to state that this band was never notable at all. This is what I found when searching for info on them. They were only ever mentioned in their own websites, old blogs and discussion boards, and occasional gig announcements. A non-notable band, despite the strange nomination and discussion above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not temporary. I have never heard about this band but I looked them up and couldn't find anything reliable. Non-notable band, just like the others said. 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostDestroyer100 (talk • contribs)

Changed nomination reason to: Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now could people please discuss actual notability instead of correcting the nominator about how it is not temporary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Admin - The votes by GhostDestroyer and myself above discussed the originally faulty nomination, and the band's notability. Those are legit votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly I agree with User:doomsdayer520 that the comments above did address actual notability rather than just the inadequacy of the nomination, which has been edited since in a way that makes the replies seem like non sequiturs. Secondly I have been unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I change my opinion from "I doubt that the subject was ever notable" to "the subject was never notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A non notable band, as pe above. Alex-h (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2020 (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.