Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (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 Redirect to Nineteen (song). bd2412 T 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross (band)

[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)

While this low-charting single seems to help subject meet WP:MUSICBIO, it has not resulted in any press for the band and so they still appear to fail WP:GNG and are not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I brought up this article at WT:WPMUSIC due to my own concerns given my expertise in the field. Literally the only source I found was a college newspaper which seemed to garner only a single WP:ROUTINE given that one of the group's members is an alumnus of that college. The only other hit was this blog, which appears to be self-published and mostly focuses on a cover version of their single anyway. A search for "Ben Stennis" + "Waycross" gave me nothing. Typical country music sources like Roughstock.com, CMT, Country Standard Time, etc. gave absolutely nothing either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While reaching No. 54 in the Hot Country Songs Billboard chart is not that impressive, that does satisfy WP:BAND. The Hot Country Songs chart is listed in WP:OKAYCHARTS. WP:BAND states 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'. Hence, the band satisfies WP:BAND and the page should stay. WP:OKAYCHARTS is a bit confusingly formatted, so I'll listen to any arguments that I have that wrong, but everything I can see says that the band meets a sufficient notability guideline. Ross-c (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: The thing is, they turn up literally nothing at all except the non-reliable sources I pointed out above. They utterly fail WP:V because, outside the Joel Whitburn Country Songs book, we don't even know who was in the group. They may meet a notability guideline with a charted single, but they fail other sourcing guidelines. Not everyone who charts is notable -- just ask Mickey Dimichele, who made the same chart in 2004 but turns up nothing at all either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with TenPoundHammer on this and note NBAND states that they "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", not that they are. Barring further sources. I would say they're not notable, which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ben Stennis does seem to have some songwriting credits to his name (see Category:Songs written by Ben Stennis, but as there is nothing unambiguously proving this to be the same Ben Stennis, any connection would likely be WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: @TenPoundHammer: My point is that they pass WP:BAND, so they don't need to pass any other notability guidelines. Hence, given that I've pointed out (and others have noted) that they pass WP:BAND, we don't need to see if they pass other guidelines. If their song had only charted in the very lower regions of the chart named (which is an acceptable chart), then we can note that guidelines are guidelines, but in this case their song is well within the charts, and satisfying WP:BAND is, in my opinion, enough. Ross-c (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:BAND isn't ironclad. The country chart used to have 100 positions. There are artists in the Joel Whitburn book who have only one song that got to #94 and were never heard from again. Meeting one criterion of WP:BAND does not supercede WP:BLP or WP:GNG. And as I said, these guys don't even pass freaking WP:V, as there is LITERALLY NOTHING OUT THERE saying who was even IN THE GROUP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BAND isn't ironclad. That doesn't in any way mean that we should ignore it and assume that a band isn't notable if it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Otherwise there's no point in having specific notability guidelines at all. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But MUSICBIO/NBAND is less ironclad as it uses the term may be notable. If it stated that that subject are notable you would have a point. Find sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ross-c: Google results for "Ted Moxley" "Ben Stennis"]. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've 'screwed up' at all. It's just that satisfying one guideline is enough, in my opinion, to justify the inclusion of the page. There is no need for multiple guidelines to be satisfied. And therefore, my vote is based on WP:BAND and the other searches to see if they satisfy, e.g., WP:GNG do not counter the reasons for my keep vote. Ross-c (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I think the fault in your argument is that WP:GNG supercedes WP:BAND, not vice-versa. There are artists who satisfy at least one criterion of WP:BAND but utterly fail WP:GNG, and I think it's pretty clear that this is one of them. The sources just aren't there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: - yes, they appear to fail WP:GNG. But, as we have WP:BAND, that in no way means that they shouldn't have a page. The whole point of having multiple notability guidelines is that WP:GNG is not a one size fits all guideline that always works. As in WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NFOOTY, there is a simple objective measure of notability in WP:BAND, which is that the band has had a single in a qualifying chart. Which the subject of this article has. And, like in the Olympic Games and Football players, this page deserves to be on Wikipedia. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the fact that there is literally no sourcing on these guys, which shows a complete failure of any other policy. WP:BAND only says charted artists MAY be notable. Have you found any sourcing that I've somehow missed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Comment - I'll put this here as the levels of response above are complicated. Here is the text from WP:N which states that a topic is notable if it meets either WP:GNG or a specific notability criteria. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Ross-c (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nineteen (song). Due to the lack of other references, I will point out Moxley's LinkedIn profile, which says he was affiliated with "Waycross Music" but doesn't make clear that he was a performing member. There simply isn't enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article; their one single is a good redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen (song). Agree that the above editor's suggestion is the best solution. This subject (Waycross) fails both WP:BAND and GNG based on lack of significant sources. A one-time appearance at the outer-reaches of a specialized Billboard chart is not especially noteworthy, especially considering the metrics for chart entries for new releases are based on so many variables, such as promotional giveaways, pre-orders, etc. Perhaps had it stayed on the charts for more than one week it might mean something. So while this subject's involvement with a notable song (Nineteen) is not enough for a stand-alone article, the song itself is notable and this subject deserves mention there as the original recording artist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen (song) appears reasonable. While the band may technically pass WP:BAND, the article really doesn't contain any useful information other than the song. Ifnord (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2018 (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.