Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Harmony (3rd Nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony.

A very close call (mainly due to FoolMeOnce2Times' argument) but ultimately due to other WP:JUSTAPOLICY !votes the consensus was not strong enough against the redirect camp's concern. I will state here and now that it seems very likely that this group will eventually make headlines and that this outcome 'today' should not be the basis for deletion 'tomorrow' if a credible assertion to notability is made through GNG (excluding X Factor and press releases as sources). This arguably could have also been a procedural close on 29 April 2013 as the nominator (SPA) immediately !voted keep which would have been seen as a formal withdrawal. Mkdwtalk 20:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fifth Harmony (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)

This article was redirected after a 2nd AfD nomination. I created the article again last week as there have been multiple WP:RS that have surfaced since that redirect. However, the article I created was redirected based on the 2nd nomination. While I understand this rationale, there are references that have appeared since the 2nd closure that would warrant a new article. I also see that there is some controversy with this article being created so I took it here so that a consensus could hopefully be reached. I will leave my vote below.

  • Keep – I am the nominator, but took the article to AfD as my work was redirected based on the 2nd AfD nomination. While the other discussions stated that they are not notable outside of the X Factor, and as such do not meet the guidelines for WP:BAND. The rationale seems valid, but regardless if they are notable for their work on the X Factor (regardless of what place they ended up at), they are still notable as they received significant coverage in reliable sources. There is also rationale that they do not have a single released yet so they must not be notable. What needs to be looked at is the basic guidelines for notability WP:GNG. They are the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Having a single on the radio releasing an album DO go towards notability, but they are not in themselves proof of notability (as notability is not inherent). What it comes down to is they are a group that has received significant coverage from WP:RS for their work on the X Factor, their record deal with Epic Records, and the cover songs of other notable artists. The fact is, redirecting the article because they have not released a single is counterproductive. There are numerous articles that exist for cover bands, A cappella groups, etc. This is not a case for WP:OTHERSTUFF, but a case of trying to get everyone back to the basics and ask if they meet basic notability guidelines. --DaisyKitteyMEO (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)— DaisyKitteyMEO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – I would also like to note that this article seems to get quite a bit of work from other editors. Shortly after I created the page, an editor came along and spammed the article by adding pages of content with information that is NOT supported by references. I would ask that the article not be judged by these spammers as the article written in its current form is about as long as it can get with the available references. What additional can be said about them, their shoe size? Also, I notice a lot of IP editors and potential duplicate accounts voting on the last discussions. I want to let you know that by doing so you only make it look worse and will ultimately make your case to delete the article. If you want to vote, leave a vote, but do not spam the article or leave multiple votes from multiple accounts. Simply leave your vote then leave it alone. Let it be judged fairly. --DaisyKitteyMEO (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You kind of work against your own intentions here. You seem to want to keep the article but still you created the AfD. The AfD itself works mostly as a Delete !vote so I dont know if your Keep !vote will be accepted. For next time ask someone else to do the AfD for you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DaisyKitteyMEO (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. czar · · 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A couple of things: (1) AfD is for deletion arguments only. Are you arguing for deletion or against it? (2) If you're here to do a deletion review per the talk page recommendation, you want Wikipedia:Deletion review instead. Delrev is for reviewing the previous AfD's decision without creating a new one. (3) Consensus doesn't count votes, so they're summaries of opinions but "not votes" (!votes). (4) Let me know how I can help. czar · · 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I did recommend deletion review, but since we're here yet again (sigh), redirect (per AFDs 1 and 2). The article as it stands now actually has less information than when the 2nd AFD closed, so the notability of the band has clearly not changed. I agree they are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, hence they have an entry in a list, but they are still not notable outside of The X Factor. And then maybe protect the redirect until such time as notability (outside of The X Factor, i.e. a music chart) can properly be demonstrated. –anemoneprojectors– 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. This group still hasn't established notability independent of X Factor. An standalone article can be recreated if and when the group charts. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, I'm intrigued, I guess I'll play. First, it is strange that the nominator chose to keep the article they recommended. Never seen that, but oh well. Despite, it looks like they receive enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. What they need to show is that they meet WP:BAND. The past AfD discussions (all 3 million of them it looks like) state to redirect as they do not meet WP:BAND; however, looks like they meet #1 as they have significant coverage even outside of the X Factor. Record deal with Epic Records and in the studio working on an album, not sure if having a song released is an issue here. Maybe I am not reading WP:BAND correctly, but looks like they fall into #1. Let the comments begin......--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, It could be argued they also meet #9 as well as #1. That said, I would still have voted for a redirect as most of their notability covered in this article is covered under List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2). The problem I have with deletion or redirecting the article yet again is Fifth Harmony are celebrities both in social media and the pop world as a whole. The industry, their peers(US and international), and their numerous fans know who they are and are just waiting for their single to drop. The group have appeared in numerous US and international teen magazines, presented the "Song of the Year" award to Taylor Swift at the 2013 Radio Disney Music Awards, and even co-hosted the 2013 Radio Disney Music Awards after party. The stage is set, the single is now finished and the serious promoting of themselves and their music begins May 13. Deleting or redirecting the article at this time seems rather pointless given their post X-Factor notoriety and the process stage they're in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — 98.247.12.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony, per Gene93k. I'll also note, what this article lacks in substance, it makes up for in WP:BLP violations — This section is full of unsourced personal details as well as inappropriate sources, including Wikia, Tumblr; a big 'no, no' in the eyes of WP:BLPSOURCES. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So you believe they should only have an article if they meet criteria #2 under WP:BAND? What do we do with the other 11 criteria? Also, I see the comment about WP:BLP violations and agree 100%. This article appears to have hundreds of edits since it was nominated for deletion. Looks like it is now semi-protected, but who knows what is and what isn't reliable without keeping up with them all? I went through it before my !vote, but the article looks completely different at this point and don't have the energy to re-read the article and go through all of the sources again. Would recommend possibly fully protecting the article until a consensus is reached. Not sure if anywhere on this page has the ability to do so or if it is even worth it at this point. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think the "trash" that is included in the article is reason to redirect although that thought had crossed my mind as a way of temporarily putting a halt to the vandalism. In addition to what has been mentioned, I also don't think gossip blogs or fan pages should be considered as reliable sources either. I'm relieved to see that most of the more offensive and libelous content has been removed and the article semi-protected with a note added, but disappointed to see that "trash" still remains. I HAVE taken the time to re-read the article and check the sources. Almost everything in the members section is either false, misleading, a rumor, or "filler" and should be edited by someone able, and then the article fully protected if possible. Normani didn't meet age eligibility requirements to compete for Miss Texas so at best that entry is misleading and "Other reports indicate.." is a fancy way of saying "rumors are" which checking the sources will back that up. The story regarding Cabello's audition I would argue is just "filler", regardless it is both incorrect, incomplete and will never be properly sourced unless someone present at the time the event occurred makes it public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - True about the Miss Texas and the Cabello's audition. It is a case of notability masking if you ask me. I took another quick look at Google to see what is there for sourcing. Aside from the way the article sits at the moment, I still feel that meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND (under criteria #1) based on the numerous hits that show up on Google. Unfortunately, it looks like most of the WP:RS were removed from the article since I left my !vote and crap like blogs and other unreliable sources were added. Judging from the current state of the article, I was thinking about changing my !vote to delete due to the misleading content; however, it wouldnt be fair based on the fact that I am able to find many reliable sources on Google. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's clear from the current content and grammatical errors, many contributors, some well intended some not so, are children. Fifth Harmony's social media popularity grows daily, so the "problem" isn't likely to go away once they do meet #2 of WP:BAND, if that proves to be reason for redirection or deletion of this article. There are likely to be even more contributors, not less. I would rather see the article remain, but stay locked with all content filtered through a person or persons so that only meaningful content be included. I agree there is very little substance in the article as written but that does not mean it doesn't exist as has been pointed out. All the group members have interesting backgrounds prior to their appearance on the X-Factor worth mention in the member's section, X-Factor being just a footnote. Most members have had either previous recording or performance experience, not to mention their charitable works. Unfortunately, instead of adding meaningful content to this article about that, contributors have chosen to focus on who's dating who. Lastly on the matter of notability, social media and YouTube should be a big factor when placing a weight on #1 of WP:BAND. I'm new to this wiki thing so still haven't figured out how to add sources, but what is clear for anyone that checks, is these post X-Factor covers Fifth Harmony has recorded have received wide coverage from numerous well known music blogs and online magazines, not only in the US, but France, Italy, UK, South America, and on and on. The aggregate for why a group meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND should be considered when deciding if that criteria alone is enough to warrant having an article. Given YouTube views and online media coverage post X-Factor, I would suggest this group does on #1 alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kind of...maybe...I guess? Unfortunately, YouTube cannot be used as a standalone reference as the site is not considered a reliable source. However, It can be used as a reference if it is distributing the reference (e.g., a video of a news cast - the newscast is the actual reference). See WP:YOUTUBE for more information on it. Also, I don't care how much they have on YouTube as they would not really meet notability based on viral videos or being YouTube personalities. Anything that you state above is great, but it seems like I am hitting my head against a wall here as there needs to be WP:RS. The careers of the members prior to Fifth Harmony should be included in the article, BUT WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE SOURCES? That is the issue with the article as written as there are guesses, predictions, and speculations, all supported by unreliable sources. It contains a bunch of crap that is poorly referenced. The article needs a rewrite to contain only the information in WP:RS. I would gladly take the time to do it, but I know based on the editing history that it would be pointless and someone will come back along and reintroduce the crap in its current form. Article should probably be taken down to a stub and then built back up based on (and I will say this again - and for the last time) RELIABLE SOURCES. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was referring to social media coverage of works appearing on YouTube as pertains to WP:BAND criteria #1, not the YouTube videos standalone. I've read WP:BAND and there are only guidelines related to the criterion needed for an article to exist. If, and I emphasize "IF", meeting just criteria #1 under WP:BAND is ever sufficient reason to keep an article, a weight of some sort needs to be put on each of the criterion due to the subjectivity inherent in WP:BAND guidelines, otherwise there would be no question the article should remain as criteria #1 has been met. I would be asking myself, "how much?", "which forms?", "what kind?" and "is it temporary or sustained?". If just satisfying criteria #1 is never considered reason enough to keep an article, then there's less of a question this article should be deleted until other WP:BAND criteria is met. I say "less of a question" because depending on interpretation, the group may also satisfy #12 of WP:BAND since they were recently interviewed and answered fan questions over a two hour segment on Radio Disney. That also depends on whether or not Radio Disney qualifies as a national radio broadcast and whether two hours is considered substantial. I'm pretty sure all here are in agreement that the article in its current state does not meet WP:RS but I don't see anywhere within the article where guesses, predictions, or speculations have been made? I've read through WP:RS as well as the notability guidelines and media coverage of the covers, if sourced better or more completely, seems to meet requirements? That said, with the exception of the existing tables and the "2013-present" section, including the covers that could easily be put in table format, I agree with the article needing to be stripped down and the sooner the better as there still remains questionable content in the Members section. If you have the ability to do so, please do! As for the "pointless" argument, I've already suggested keeping the article protected or semi-protected, at least until it can be fully built. After that I would hope a clone would exist so if rampant vandalism did occur the clone could be recovered. You probably know better than I if that is even possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for bringing up WP:TOOSOON. First, I do not think that Wikipedia is a promotional tool for the band as it appears they are doing a pretty good job outside of Wikipedia (MTV, People (magazine), OK Magazine, and on and on). Now, for WP:TOOSOON, entertainers (WP:ENTERTAINER) states that "even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having...(2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." That means that even if they do not pass WP:GNG, which it is pretty clear that they do because of the WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, that WP:TOOSOON would not apply as they have a significant fan base, referred to as "Harmonizers" here and here. So I guess I still do not see why redirecting something that meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND applies here. Again, maybe I am not looking at WP:BAND incorrectly, but they appear to meet at least 1 of the criteria (#1) if not more. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony Again, there has been no progress on an album, much less a single, and the "award" they won is from an Internet poll where ballot stuffing was encouraged. Sourcing is poor and group has hardly broken out as of yet, and the Radio Disney Music Awards had no television presence at all, seeming to be a glorified concert solely to promote the radio network rather than awarding talent on artistic merit. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So we are back with another redirect vote without a policy based reason. You state that there has been no progress on an album. I think that is debatable, but has nothing to do with a policy for redirecting the page. They do not have an album released, that is a fact. As such they would fail #5 of WP:BAND. In fact, even if they released an album they would still fail #5 as they need 2 or more from a major label. With that aside, failing #5 does not mean that they fail WP:BAND altogether. Can you take a look at the references (in Google, not in the article) and tell me how the band would fail #1 under WP:BAND. I have asked others above but no one has yet to respond. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You can also see a common outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emocapella. Although I voted to delete the article due to not having WP:SIGCOV, the article was kept as it met WP:BAND. The difference here is that there IS WP:SIGCOV of this group. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I need to cite policy? I'm going by the poor sourcing of the article, which is mainly gossip sites, a bunch of cheerleader pop news sites that never deal in neutrality, and an outright press release from an email newsletter, which is not neutral in any sense of the word. Emocapella is completely different from this article as this one would at least be able to redirected until they get more notability and an album or single out. At this point, they're about as notable as any of the 21,192 garage bands that post articles here every year, but they were at least in the public eye on a national contest. In my eyes as far as WP:BAND, it doesn't qualify under 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10, and 11. We're under no deadline. They'll get a full article here someday, but for now a section on the season article works just fine. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for the clarification and sorry if my request for additional information seemed contentious. Of course you do not need to cite policy, but it helps others (like me) understand why you vote the way you do. As we are trying to reach a consensus, not just counting votes, it is good to cite policy. If you were able to point out where I am flawed in my reasoning for my !vote, which I have been before ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booked Out|example]]), I would gladly change my !vote based on that policy reason. Anyways...thank you for confirming my understanding of WP:BAND. It seems that they would qualify under criteria #1.
It took me a minute to find it, but this is what the article looked like when I fist came into the discussion. You can see that it has changed quite a bit from that time and if you look at all of the history, you will see that it changes quite a bit on a daily basis. Kind of points out that they do have quite a bit of a following as their "harmonizers" are willing to come here and vandalize the page on a daily basis by spamming links to non-reliable sources just to update what is in their eyes (not mine) the group's fan page. You ARE CORRECT that the article looks WP:UGLY with bad sourcing; however, we do not need to redirect or delete articles based on that reasoning. At least in my opinion anyway. You will find sources that meet WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS by going to Google. In fact, the group can be found in MTV, MTV again, OK! Magazine, Seventeen Magazine, and People Magazine. These are all AFTER the X Factor and are just a few of the most notable sources. There are plenty of others from sources that are considered reliable, but I feel using the best sources is good policy as opposed to trying cover up an article with as many sources as can be found.
I realize that this is a contentious discussion based on it being nominated for deletion so many times, but do not feel we should the article just because their fans don't understand Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing, formatting, etc. I like to stay with the policy and guidelines and based on them meeting WP:BAND (criteria #1), I still do not see a reason to redirect the page. I also agree that we are under no deadline, but not sure why we would delete or redirect a page that meets notability guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, there has been no progress on an album, much less a single..." Not even debatable. The fact is the single is set and the album nearly finished, all public knowledge if one takes the time to do their research. Regardless what one believes the work status is, nowhere have I read in the policy/guidelines that the status of one's work matters???

"Sourcing is poor and group has hardly broken out as of yet..." An article poorly sourced is not reason enough to delete or redirect if better sources exist, nor have I read anywhere that a band must "break out"(ambiguous term) in order to be considered for article inclusion???

"Radio Disney Music Awards had no television presence at all..." If "television presence" is a requirement for being considered a reliable or recognizable source, please share with me the wiki document link so that I might better understand???

"At this point, they're about as notable as any of the 21,192 garage bands that post articles here every year..." I've done my research and much much fewer than 21,192 "garage bands" have appeared and are still appearing in International online and print magazines, or have had their recent works so highly praised by so many cheerleader pop news sites worldwide. I can count on one hand how many "garage bands" Ryan Seacrest, 17 Magazine, Billboard, MTVnews, Radio Disney and on... have written about, featured, or interviewed. And how many have been featured or had many of their works featured in meaningless polls by those cheerleader pop news sites, or how many have had pull-out posters featured in print teen magazines, and it goes on. Everyone needs to keep in mind when casting a vote that this is an underage Pop R&B band and who their audience is. For one, it is a younger social media savvy demographic that watches very little conventional television and listens to very little conventional radio. The band's online fan base has more than doubled post X-Factor and spread even broader internationally. The aggregate of all coverage and their social media standing speaks volumes to their notability. What troubles me most about this talk is anyone doing a bit of research would know the facts yet its clear from many of the 'redirect' comments that few have bothered looking into them, rather instead making gross assumptions and in some instances casting aspersions on this group or on an entire industry. How can anyone cast a vote without first knowing the facts? Something else also clear and troubling is that Wikipedia or some of its members are falling way behind the rapidly changing times when interpreting the policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.12.68 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They were on a major TV show and are now signed to major label company. You're gonna end up having to make the page in the future anyway. House1090 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. When their debut single is announced, then the article can be recreated. Unreal7 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fifth_Harmony_(3rd_Nomination)&oldid=1137848161"