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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maids of Honor (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has members of notable bands but is not itself notable. Absolutely no secondary sourcing found beyond the trivial mentions present. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there was a single band to merge to I'd say merge, but as there isn't, best to leave this as a standalone. Notable musicians and passess WP:V ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), so no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing but one-sentence, trivial mentions among those sources. That may be enough for WP:V but not WP:GNG and I doubt that "there's nowhere to merge it to so it must be kept" is a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's compliant with all relevant policies then. Ideally it would be merged, and Smash Mouth is a possible target looking at it again. The band containing members of other notable bands gives it encyclopedic relevance - that's why the content should be kept, wherever it's located.--Michig (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a precedent that "has members of other notable bands" does not give an individual band carte blanche if they fail every other criterion of WP:BAND. I can live with it being merged and mentioned on Smash Mouth's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as a notable reference other than to it's fans. References do not support the notable nature of the subject band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my vote. Notability is not established well enough. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:25, 17 January 2011 (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.