Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moments in Grace

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 of the debate was keep. Royboy crashfan 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moments in Grace[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The article itself consists of one sentence, followed by a list of band members and a tracklisting. Band fails all notability guidelines. Claim of notability relies on having released a single major label album. -- ChrisB 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND and possibly WP:VANITY Keep per below --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the article needs a lot of work and updating, they seem to have quite a large internet following, have a lot of online press reviews, and their lyrics pop up a lot on google. I don't know the precedents on this kind of band, however. You might want to look at their website. -- ConDem^Talk 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you're right, I've just looked at their allmusic profile [1], and they seem to be notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, they seem to barely pass WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:MUSIC: "the article itself must document notability" Where does this article document notability? Wikipedia is not here to document every band that released an album and a video. -- ChrisB 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said barely. Royboy crashfan

03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks good to me. For great justice. 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem notable enough -- Astrokey44|talk 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - COULD SOMEBODY EXPLAIN HOW THEY'RE "NOTABLE ENOUGH"? Do I just not understand WP:MUSIC? They broke up a year ago, and nobody noticed. As I've already noted, the article says NOTHING other than that they're a band. I'll stop now, I'm just completely baffled by these responses. Are people looking at a different article than I am? -- ChrisB 06:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a large web presence and fanbase. Although, obviously, the article needs expanding and updating as it is extremely bare, I'd prefer just to stick a stub tag on... Con Dem^Talk 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Has performed music for a work of media that is notable Eivind ^t ^@^c 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per ConDem James Kendall [talk] 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up and expanded. Stifle 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Urr? Excuse me, releasing a major label album IS notable. RGTraynor 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are just adequately notable, though the article somewhat fails to explain this properly. --Rob 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a useless article with no assertion of notability. A web presence these days is standard marketing, not at all an indication of notability. Brian G. Crawford 18:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think if they got reviewed allmusic.com, its worth a keep here. That's the industry standard. Jonas Silk 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ConDem. YellowPigNowNow 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify what the claims are here:

1) Releasing a major label album is notable. Seriously? You guys better sharpen up your article writing skills, cause that means Wiki is lacking about 15,000 bands that released major label albums.

2) Being reviewed on AllMusic is notable. Really? Again, better sharpen up your article writing skils, cause AllMusic is chock full of reviews of non-notable bands. My friend's band has both an AMG profile and a review - and they'll freely admit that they're not notable enough to have a Wiki article. (It just happened that an AMG reviewer liked their album and wrote a review. And any new album that gets a review gets a profile.) And I feel like letting AMG be the determiner is like letting IMDB be the determiner for actors and films.

3) What exactly defines a "web presence and fanbase"? This band has 30,000 hits on spam lyrics sites. The only fansite is dead. 21 mentions on USENET.

4) Articles that have no content are notable. This is the one that's getting me. There's nothing here. The band is defunct, there will never be anything else here.

I genuinely have nothing against this band - I had never heard of them before AfD'ing the article. I just thought the standard was more obvious than this, especially with an article that has one sentence and an album tracklisting. -- ChrisB 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1), I think you have that backwards - the notability criteria don't say what we must have, it says what we mustn't have. The notability criteria don't say "you must write article about every notable band", it just says "this band is not notable enough for inclusion." There's a not-so-subtle distinction.

Also, the notability criteria is fuzzy for a reason. Last I checked there weren't any exact numbers anywhere to go by. Having exact numbers and exact criteria kind of leads to wikilawyering and gaming the system, while AfD is all about reasoning and debate whether or not the criteria are satisfied in that particular case's specific requirements. It's good to have some footing, but bad to have footing that everyone knows how to yank from under you. Ultimately, WP's notability criteria are based on well-founded gut feelings. And as surprising as it may seem, it works.

I agree the article is not really that good. But regarding 4), I disagree that the article can't be expanded - even a little bit. I predict it won't get much better if kept though, as there's not that much history to document, but it can be done... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album release and Allmusic.com review makes them notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as per Capitalistroadster's reasoning. Very, very, very marginally notable. Won't be too mad if this goes boom though, as there's not much stuff to document though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:13, 11 April 2006 (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.