Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC3

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. KrakatoaKatie 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UC3 and Tracy Williams

Encyclopedically non-notable and defunct all-girl music group which was apparently dependent on Hooters sponsorship and USO tours. May have been a minor act at NFL games. Fails WP:MUSIC. Money quote from article:"The group is apparently on hiatus (possibly permanently), and has not performed or recorded together since early 2005. In addition, their official website, www.uc3online.com, no longer works."

I am also nominating Tracy Williams, a UC3 member with her own article as failing WP:MUSIC. Bwithh 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. A band that breaks up does not thereby cease to be notable. And they pass WP:MUSIC by their touring: "They have performed throughout the U.S. and overseas in several countries." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Being a part of a Hooters/USO tour of some US military bases is hardly the equivalent of having their own international concert tour in terms of profile and an indication of success 2) I don't think they were encyclopedically notable even before they became defunct Bwithh 23:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ugh. They shouldn't be notable, but they are. WP:MUSIC doesn't distinguish between package tours and tours organized around the group. - Richfife 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me emphasize at this point that WP:MUSIC is a rough guideline subject to reasonable interpretation in the cause of upholding Wikipedia's standards as an authoritative, respected encyclopedia, rather than rule to be followed to the letter. Quote: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Bwithh 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines do say that, but I'm actually really allergic to gray area judgment calls like we're getting into here. If the article can be justifid under WP:MUSIC, then it really ought to stay. One man's common sense is another man's foolishness and making calls like this inevitably leads to edit wars, deletion reviews and all sorts of ugliness. - Richfife 03:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the neverending struggle for the soul of wikipedia? or more optimistically, the struggle for wikipedia's evolution? Bwithh 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorta, kinda. But I think trying to find objective, reproducible standards can help get around that, and WP:MUSIC is one of them. We shouldn't deviate from it lightly. - Richfife 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This satisfies both the letter and spirit of WP:MUSIC. The group received non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources (though, this could be better illustrated in the article, than it is). An international tour clearly qualifies them. The nom seems to have a problem with the fact that its Hooters that sponsored it. Who cares who the sponsor is? Also, I echo the point, that notability is by nature *not* transitory. Once somebody acheives it, it can not fade. Also, lets keep in mind Tracy Williams was the most prominent member of this group, and she is easily notable, for her prior involvement in P.Y.T. (band), which predates UC3. They key item here, is that nobody is using Wikipedia to gain national or international exposure. Wiliams and UC3 had that, before the articles on them were made. --Rob 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, the "international Hooters/USO tour" doesn't indicate encyclopedic notability whether or not the group is still operative. I look forward to reading the non-trivial coverage you have indicated exists. There are none to be seen in the article at the moment. The newspaper article linked is transparently a bit of promo fluff. Bwithh 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator's only reasoning for nominating Williams was her being a member of UC3. I request you specifically address her involvement in PYT, and her resultant notability that *predates* UC3. This wasn't addressed, and its not clear to me, if the nominator was aware of this at the time of nomination. I think this was a very bad use of combined nominations, as these two articles are quite unique (though, I of course, support keeping both). --Rob 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to PYT. In my initial opinion, this group should also be considered a good candidate for deletion discussion as a non-encyclopedically notable music group. I'll look further into this. Bwithh 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on your comments above, it seems you never heard of PYT, until I told you about them (e.g you "thanked" me for bring them to your attention). This is only possible, if you didn't read the Tracy Williams article before nominating it (since PYT is half the content of the very small article). Can you please clarify if you actually read Tracy Williams before you nominated, or not? Anyway, if you wish to nominate PYT as well (as you threatened), I strongly urge you to fully read the entire article in advance. --Rob 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read the Tracey Williams article but I didn't bother to click on the PYT link before, and the article in general didn't register much on my brain. I look forward to reading the PYT in intricate detail Bwithh 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete UC3, no Allmusic entry, all the "bios" I can find are copied-and-pasted press releases, even fails the Youtube test. Next thing we get is profiles of Hooters waitresses. Keep Tracy Williams and mention UC3 in her bio. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Tracy Williams certainly; if she's toured with acts like Destiny's Child, she's notable. And I think we should Keep UC3 as well, though I wouldn't mind seeing the article rewritten and shortened. It seems like they've toured fairly extensively and gotten a certain amount of press. Even if it's on USO tours, that still means a lot of people have seen them.

Argh; last comment is by me; forgot to sign it. NoahB 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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.