Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tramp Stamps (band)

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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that further discussion will yield a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 21:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tramp Stamps (band)[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)

Fails GNG & WP:BAND. There is no secondary coverage apart from the release of 3 TikTok videos and attracted 300k followers. They are just ordinary Tiktoker. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Near-instant deletion nomination a few minutes after the article was created is highly suspect. In-depth coverage from numerous reliable sources satisfies WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 05:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic clearly passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from Rolling Stone, Vice, Insider... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, There is no secondary coverage other than this Tiktok videos getting viral issue. Check the dates of news all of them are of April 2021. Sonofstar (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the coverage is a lot more than just routine coverage of TikTok content going viral. For example, the Popdust article goes into quite a lot of depth about the lyrics and links to feminism and sexuality and is not the only article to do so. The coverage is not run of the mill stuff. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: I trust your experience in wikipedia. Don't you think this is similar to overnight sensation and nothing else? If you explain this I will withdraw. Sonofstar (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofstar: hard to tell at this early stage whether they will fade into obscurity like many others or if they will find lasting success. With that being said, I would still argue that they've attained enough coverage in multiple sources to have an article. There also doesn't appear to be any appropriate merge target for this content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I too am suspicious of how this AfD was initiated just minutes after the article was created. The band has picked up a lot of critics who say they don't deserve attention, and trying to kill this Wikipedia article appears to be part of the same popular effort. But the band has absolutely attained plentiful and reliable coverage as seen in the sources currently used in the article. Perhaps that coverage is for all the wrong reasons, giving more weight to the band's critics, but I will point out that if you want to argue that the band is only a social media phenomenon, the exact same charge could be thrown at their army of critics. Also compare to Threatin, which is an encyclopedia-worthy entity though the music has never been discussed in much detail. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they suck and I think they are the Monkees of the TikTok age, an awful construct. But procedure says notability is met and they get kept. For better or worse. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I say weak because even though the band currently is heavily covered, it's WP:ONEVENT, and the topic could be another one of those viral sensations that the media only covers in the moment with no long-lasting notability. See also: "Hot Problems" and "Chinese Food". I won't WP:CRYSTALBALL that, however, so if the band does continue to get coverage months and years later, I'll keep it 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG as per the sourcing pointed out by Spiderone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have some doubts it will achieve lasting notability, but for now it passes notability requirements. If they don't have lasting success and coverage, can be deleted down the road. StarM 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The many sources now in the article are sufficient to show that this band is notable. I am old enough to remember when the Monkees were subject to similar accusations, and they are notable nonetheless. As for the comment by Star Mississippi, please read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Once notable, always notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolling Stone coverage along with others means they meet notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2021 (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.