HeavenMayFade (closed)

HeavenMayFade – There is no consensus to overturn the speedy deletion. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist at AFD. Therefore the article will remain deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HeavenMayFade (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Greetings, I'm requesting a deletion review for the article HeavenMayFade which was speedily deleted under A7. The page about A7 says: "When assessing an article for such a claim (the first way described above), you should search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject... The existence of such a statement of noteworthiness/importance/significance within the article would generally ensure that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied. Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists and has been made deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied." I stated the noteworthiness of HeavenMayFade in the "Impact" section of the article, which, according to the above, should mean A7 generally should not have been applied. I described my reasoning in the talk page too which was also deleted without comment. For convenience I will paste the Impact section here: ==Impact== Towards the end of HeavenMayFade's active years, the band saw its lead guitarist Harley Graves being scouted by the now-notable band Miss Fortune. Graves' distinct musical style, which was honed during his time with HeavenMayFade, became a major influence in shaping the sound of Miss Fortune's debut album, "A Spark to Believe".^[1] This album subsequently reached the Billboard charts, marking the start of Miss Fortune's successful musical journey. HeavenMayFade therefore plays a role in understanding the genesis and evolution of Miss Fortune's musical style. Thank you. Sapols (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Note this was incorrectly listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 7 originally, edit history available there. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Comments - This will probably be the same as most A7 appeals. On the one hand, if the appellant makes a reasonable case, and the appellant appears to have made a reasonable case, the A7 will be overturned, because speedy deletions should be uncontentious. If the appellant thinks that an article should be restored, it probably should be. On the other hand, restoring an A7 only brings the article to article space for one or two weeks, because if an administrator reasonably but mistakenly thought that it was an A7, a rough consensus of the community will think that it isn't notable, a higher bar. Most A7 appeals should result in restoration, but also in deletion at AFD. Can the article be temporarily restored so that non-admin users can see it briefly? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Done, Robert McClenon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] As far as credible claims of significance go, I don't think "their guitarist later played for a band that was actually notable" is a strong one, and I don't see any other indication of significance in the article or any sourcing that would contribute to passing WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] References ^ Miss Fortune Interview \| Origins \| Tyler Carter \| Guys In Sombrero's. YouTube. 8 June 2014. Retrieved 7 June 2023. Weak Endorse. As Robert McClenon says it is usually best practice to restore A7 deletions upon a reasonable request like this. However, most marginal A7's are slam dunk deletes for non-notability at AfD so a restoration here doesn't guarantee that we'll keep the article for the long term. On my own analysis none of the sources in the article are usable to establish notability and the only semi-plausible claim to significance is the involvement of lead guitarist Harley Graves who went on to play in a more notable band. It looks like a valid A7 to me. Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability.See WP:NOTINHERITED. But it's a close enough call that I can't really fault Sapols for asking for restoration. But unless someone can find better sources, the article doesn't have a a snowball's chance in hell of surviving WP:AfD, so it seems rather pointless to restore now just to delete again in a week or so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse* - There is nothing in the text of the article that provides a credible claim of significance. The sources are not directly relevant to the bar for a credible claim of significance, but most of the sources are unreliable (or garbage sources, to be less polite). In this case, in my opinion, the article not only will not pass musical notability, but doesn't make a credible claim of significance. Thank you for temporarily restoring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Poor sourcing, only credible claim of significance is that a band member went on to play with a more well-known band which could be mentioned in a biography on that musician. I can see why it was deleted. By the way, this is the second time this article has been deleted on A7 grounds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Look, I'm normally a stickler for speedy deletion not being applied hastily or overly broadly, and have a very expansive definition for what counts as a credible claim of significance... but the band that played a few local venues and released one EP that charted nowhere, with no hits on any chart, that broke up 10 years ago and not one member ever went on to do anything significant enough musically to merit an article. I'm sorry, but that's textbook A7: The band didn't do anything of notice outside Tulsa nor anything lasting. It's a textbook A7; if we gave it back to you, someone would nominate it for deletion, and it would just be deleted a week later. Endorse Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Revisiting this to note that I've reread both the as-deleted text of the article and WP:CCS and continue to believe that A7 applied. One member almost influencing another band, even if completely true and documented non-trivially in independent RS'es, wouldn't make this article notable. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Notability is irrelevant, because significance is explicitly a lower bar than notability. A claim doesn't have to demonstrate notability to be credible claim of significance, and anyway the claims in this article are that one member was later an influential member of a notable band. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] I don't want to endorse the A7 because I think it exceeds A7, which requires there to be no claim to significance on its face, and if I were reviewing this at say AfC I would have to look into whether it's significant or not based on is claim. That being said, I agree the article as it stands is unlikely to ever pass an AfD, but I can't boldly endorse the A7. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy. I will be clear I don’t think the article as written stands any chance at an AFD. However A7 does not apply because a claim to significance has been made: specifically that this was guitarist Harley Graves’ band before moving to a more notable band. Per Sapols above Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability, but it is still a claim to notability and this article deserves a full AFD. Frank Anchor 03:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy. The Impact section is basically entirely claims of significance. I agree it doesn't stand a chance at AfD in its current state, but that's irrelevant to A7. Also trout those above who are saying this is a "textbook A7" when it is clearly not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] (Weak) endorse but restore if the nominator really wants it to, and someone can choose to list it if they want to. I would consider one degree of separation to be a credible claim of significance (i.e. Graves is significant due to their membership in a notable band) but two is a stretch. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Hey all, Sapols chiming in. First off, thanks for taking the time to review this. You've all raised valid points about HeavenMayFade's lack of mainstream attention. It's true, but I still think their connection to Miss Fortune lends them a certain degree of relevance in this specific context, as I've stated. It's starting to look like we agree that speedy deletion might have been premature. Even if the article doesn't ultimately survive, could we move to an AfD process for a more thorough discussion? Appreciate your help. Sapols (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

HeavenMayFade – There is no consensus to overturn the speedy deletion. I decline to exercise my discretion to relist at AFD. Therefore the article will remain deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greetings, I'm requesting a deletion review for the article HeavenMayFade which was speedily deleted under A7.

The page about A7 says:

"When assessing an article for such a claim (the first way described above), you should search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject... The existence of such a statement of noteworthiness/importance/significance within the article would generally ensure that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied. Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists and has been made deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied."

I stated the noteworthiness of HeavenMayFade in the "Impact" section of the article, which, according to the above, should mean A7 generally should not have been applied. I described my reasoning in the talk page too which was also deleted without comment.

For convenience I will paste the Impact section here:

==Impact== Towards the end of HeavenMayFade's active years, the band saw its lead guitarist Harley Graves being scouted by the now-notable band Miss Fortune. Graves' distinct musical style, which was honed during his time with HeavenMayFade, became a major influence in shaping the sound of Miss Fortune's debut album, "A Spark to Believe".^[1] This album subsequently reached the Billboard charts, marking the start of Miss Fortune's successful musical journey. HeavenMayFade therefore plays a role in understanding the genesis and evolution of Miss Fortune's musical style.

Thank you.

Sapols (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was incorrectly listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 7 originally, edit history available there. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
- This will probably be the same as most A7 appeals. On the one hand, if the appellant makes a reasonable case, and the appellant appears to have made a reasonable case, the A7 will be overturned, because speedy deletions should be uncontentious. If the appellant thinks that an article should be restored, it probably should be. On the other hand, restoring an A7 only brings the article to article space for one or two weeks, because if an administrator reasonably but mistakenly thought that it was an A7, a rough consensus of the community will think that it isn't notable, a higher bar. Most A7 appeals should result in restoration, but also in deletion at AFD.
- Can the article be temporarily restored so that non-admin users can see it briefly?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Robert McClenon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as credible claims of significance go, I don't think "their guitarist later played for a band that was actually notable" is a strong one, and I don't see any other indication of significance in the article or any sourcing that would contribute to passing WP:GNG. Spicy (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Miss Fortune Interview | Origins | Tyler Carter | Guys In Sombrero's. YouTube. 8 June 2014. Retrieved 7 June 2023.

Weak Endorse. As Robert McClenon says it is usually best practice to restore A7 deletions upon a reasonable request like this. However, most marginal A7's are slam dunk deletes for non-notability at AfD so a restoration here doesn't guarantee that we'll keep the article for the long term. On my own analysis none of the sources in the article are usable to establish notability and the only semi-plausible claim to significance is the involvement of lead guitarist Harley Graves who went on to play in a more notable band. It looks like a valid A7 to me. Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability.*See WP:NOTINHERITED. But it's a close enough call that I can't really fault Sapols for asking for restoration. But unless someone can find better sources, the article doesn't have a a snowball's chance in hell of surviving WP:AfD, so it seems rather pointless to restore now just to delete again in a week or so. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There is nothing in the text of the article that provides a credible claim of significance. The sources are not directly relevant to the bar for a credible claim of significance, but most of the sources are unreliable (or garbage sources, to be less polite). In this case, in my opinion, the article not only will not pass musical notability, but doesn't make a credible claim of significance. Thank you for temporarily restoring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Poor sourcing, only credible claim of significance is that a band member went on to play with a more well-known band which could be mentioned in a biography on that musician. I can see why it was deleted. By the way, this is the second time this article has been deleted on A7 grounds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm normally a stickler for speedy deletion not being applied hastily or overly broadly, and have a very expansive definition for what counts as a credible claim of significance... but the band that played a few local venues and released one EP that charted nowhere, with no hits on any chart, that broke up 10 years ago and not one member ever went on to do anything significant enough musically to merit an article. I'm sorry, but that's textbook A7: The band didn't do anything of notice outside Tulsa nor anything lasting. It's a textbook A7; if we gave it back to you, someone would nominate it for deletion, and it would just be deleted a week later. Endorse Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this to note that I've reread both the as-deleted text of the article and WP:CCS and continue to believe that A7 applied. One member almost influencing another band, even if completely true and documented non-trivially in independent RS'es, wouldn't make this article notable. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is irrelevant, because significance is explicitly a lower bar than notability. A claim doesn't have to demonstrate notability to be credible claim of significance, and anyway the claims in this article are that one member was later an influential member of a notable band. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to endorse the A7 because I think it exceeds A7, which requires there to be no claim to significance on its face, and if I were reviewing this at say AfC I would have to look into whether it's significant or not based on is claim. That being said, I agree the article as it stands is unlikely to ever pass an AfD, but I can't boldly endorse the A7. SportingFlyer T·C 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. I will be clear I don’t think the article as written stands any chance at an AFD. However A7 does not apply because a claim to significance has been made: specifically that this was guitarist Harley Graves’ band before moving to a more notable band. Per Sapols above Being an influence on a notable thing is a very weak claim to notability, but it is still a claim to notability and this article deserves a full AFD. Frank Anchor 03:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy. The Impact section is basically entirely claims of significance. I agree it doesn't stand a chance at AfD in its current state, but that's irrelevant to A7. Also trout those above who are saying this is a "textbook A7" when it is clearly not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) endorse but restore if the nominator really wants it to, and someone can choose to list it if they want to. I would consider one degree of separation to be a credible claim of significance (i.e. Graves is significant due to their membership in a notable band) but two is a stretch. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, Sapols chiming in. First off, thanks for taking the time to review this. You've all raised valid points about HeavenMayFade's lack of mainstream attention. It's true, but I still think their connection to Miss Fortune lends them a certain degree of relevance in this specific context, as I've stated. It's starting to look like we agree that speedy deletion might have been premature. Even if the article doesn't ultimately survive, could we move to an AfD process for a more thorough discussion? Appreciate your help. Sapols (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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