Agraceful – Restored, relisted, back at AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Agraceful (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) At the time of deletion, they were considered non-notable. However, now, both Chris Roetter and Romance on a Rocketship, the alternative name of Kasey Smith, have their own pages. The band should meet criterion #6 of WP:BAND for containing two individually notable members. In addition, bassist Rick Griffith was in another band, and would result in three notable members if this page is re-enstated. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] This deletion review should probably focus on the more recent G4 deletion carried out by myself. I deleted it because it did not add reliable sourcing that was the main point of contention leading to its deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agraceful (2nd nomination). However, there is an apparently net-new claim of notability based on WP:BAND #6 ("Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."). The question then becomes: does that new assertion trump the lack of multiple sources raised in the AFD and protect it from G4 deletion? –xeno^talk 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is my own personal opinion, please do not take this in a way that I am trying to defy authority or insult xeno's intelligence, for I respect xeno greatly. However, if the page has met a criterion of notability, doesn't that overpower the lack of reliable sources? For example, Miss May I has the issue of being notable per criterion #2, which overpowers the lack of reliable sources there. I know I'm using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I thought this was a good example of a page overpowering G4 and the lack of reliable sources, which could or could not be found over time. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. As a non-admin I can't see the deleted version or it's history but from the cached version I can't see anything that would make the new argument above obvious so I can't fault xeno's original decision. That said the article was deleted for lack of notability and there's now been a new assertion of notability. I note that the two articles used in this argument have only been created since the AfD so the argument couldn't have been debated at the AfD, which in my mind now makes the AfD, and any G4 coming from it, invalid. Although the reasons given at AfD was the lack of sources we generally hold that articles meeting one of the more specific notability criteria are notable even without the sources, and so I think this new assertion is valid. That said I think we need to be careful we don't create a walled garden as I'm not sure those two artists are notable either, hence I think a relist is most appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Agraceful – Restored, relisted, back at AFD. – -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

At the time of deletion, they were considered non-notable. However, now, both Chris Roetter and Romance on a Rocketship, the alternative name of Kasey Smith, have their own pages. The band should meet criterion #6 of WP:BAND for containing two individually notable members. In addition, bassist Rick Griffith was in another band, and would result in three notable members if this page is re-enstated. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review should probably focus on the more recent G4 deletion carried out by myself. I deleted it because it did not add reliable sourcing that was the main point of contention leading to its deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agraceful (2nd nomination). However, there is an apparently net-new claim of notability based on WP:BAND #6 ("Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."). The question then becomes: does that new assertion trump the lack of multiple sources raised in the AFD and protect it from G4 deletion? –xeno^talk 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own personal opinion, please do not take this in a way that I am trying to defy authority or insult xeno's intelligence, for I respect xeno greatly. However, if the page has met a criterion of notability, doesn't that overpower the lack of reliable sources? For example, Miss May I has the issue of being notable per criterion #2, which overpowers the lack of reliable sources there. I know I'm using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I thought this was a good example of a page overpowering G4 and the lack of reliable sources, which could or could not be found over time. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. As a non-admin I can't see the deleted version or it's history but from the cached version I can't see anything that would make the new argument above obvious so I can't fault xeno's original decision. That said the article was deleted for lack of notability and there's now been a new assertion of notability. I note that the two articles used in this argument have only been created since the AfD so the argument couldn't have been debated at the AfD, which in my mind now makes the AfD, and any G4 coming from it, invalid. Although the reasons given at AfD was the lack of sources we generally hold that articles meeting one of the more specific notability criteria are notable even without the sources, and so I think this new assertion is valid. That said I think we need to be careful we don't create a walled garden as I'm not sure those two artists are notable either, hence I think a relist is most appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.