Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Holy (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Holy (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)

The article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per #6 of WP:BAND. There was a serious lack of sources though (none). But a quick search for Holy Holy along with Tony Visconti throws up literally dozens of references from sources such as The Guardian and Billboard, I have added 8 references but the article needs improving with information from these or other sources. I think the nominator could have been a little more diligent with his WP:BEFORE search, that said I do agree that the title could be less ambiguous. Maybe Holy Holy (tribute band) or Holy Holy (UK band or Holy Holy (supergroup). --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable given the people involved and the coverage that a Google search brings back. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied of it satisfying notability but continue to work on itMaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One argument I keep seeing here is that the band is notable because the participants are notable. Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED), so the group is defined as notable if it has done something notable. Has it received significant coverage from reliable sources that are specific to the group, and not coverage about the participants with a comment about the group? Has it released any notable albums? Has it charted on any national charts? The fact that Tony Visconti is a member of the group does not make the group notable. Mburrell (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Billboard The Scotsman and others as well as passing criteria#6 of WP:NMUSIC so there is no need for deletion imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A Google search brings up multiple coverages that satisfy GNG. William2001^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this article have to do with Japan? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (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.