Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Grace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fanny Grace

Fanny Grace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't seem to be a notable duo in any way. Their only single didn't chart (shame, since it was a good song), and their only album was independently released; they seem to utterly fail WP:MUSIC. Page was apparently deleted before, given the history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[[dark.]][[arias.]] (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom- non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Why is it necessary that subjects meet some arbitrary standard of "notability" to be included? Really, shouldn't the only thing we worry about be whether or not the encyclopedia is better off with coverage of this subject? If it's better off with it, then "rules" and "policies" (which are absolutely non-binding anyway) be damned, keep it in! So tell me, how would deleting this article make the encyclopedia better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You do make a good point about this, but we can't have every little thing be in an encyclopedia. I mean we can't have every local high school athlete or every small town band, it would just be too many articles. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Too many for what? Disk space? Not relevant. Deleted articles still take up disk space, and this AfD takes up even more disk space. Indexing limits? No. For someone's limited conception of what an "encyclopedia" is, a conception that contradicts Wikipedia advertising? Yes, perhaps. The advertising is "The sum of human knowledge." and "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Let me point out that if the fine print differs from what will be common, normal, human interpretation of this, it is going to cause continual trouble and resentment, not only among active editors, but among casual ones, who will simply go away with a very negative impression of Wikipedia. Once again, what is the actual harm of having a sourced, verifiable article on a topic of minor notability? If it is sufficiently notable to meet WP:V, then an article can exist based on what meets that policy. Notability, by the way, contrary to what has been said, is not a policy, it's a guideline. It is not a "core value." The advertising, in fact, reflects core values, adding only one that is also important: verifiability, and we can do a much better job with ensuring that articles are not only verifiable, but actually verified, and this is what will improve our reputation, not getting rid of the details of human knowledge. If you could take a drug that would do that with your knowledge, it would make you notably stupid. (Maybe this explains more than I might imagine!) Notability remains very important as a relative standard for what is placed within articles. There is no absolute standard of notability for human knowledge, except one that every article meets if created in good faith: a human knows it what that human put in the article. I personally gloss "notability" to require that the knowledge be shared, which is covered by WP:V.--Abd (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we have everything in here? Why would that be "too many"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the universe. We're a little less ambitious here... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. We only aim to create an encyclopedia with "the sum of human knowledge," which is tiny compared to the universe. Truly tiny. Ambitious enough, I say, but some like to be much less ambitious: "the sum of what me and my friends think is important." To each his own, I suppose. But I'll turn around a comment that is often made against inclusionists: why don't they get their own wiki? They can strip it down as much as they like, no fuss. As to our response to that argument, why, what a great idea! It's one of the possible solutions to the disagreement over inclusionism/deletionism, but it is, necessarily, a rather cumbersome one, and could, in fact, threaten the stability of the project. I'm not sure it's the best way to go.--Abd (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Some parts are searchable that way, and google has no particular trouble finding them, but nothing really obviously stunning crops up when you do that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- another non-notable piece of rubbish on wikipedia. AndreNatas (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, fails WP:BAND. KnightLago (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Claim of non-notability is arbitrary and capricious. Eclecticology (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete any claim of notability is arbitrary and carpricious. They're just two people making music. There's no evidence they've done anything worth being the wikipedia for. Article is completely unverifiable- no references.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, since Wikipedia will not be any better off without this article, and will not be any worse off with this article. They have a nationally-released album and small-but-enthusiastic support in at least a few media outlets (CMT among them). They are not just two people who make music by playing the guitar in their friends' living rooms. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [1] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the Country Music Television Bio. is a reliable source that allows us to write a stubby article - which can possibly be expanded later. Note: I disagree with many of the other reasons for keep given above. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • weal keep per Abecedare. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons amply explained above by several editors, not only Kurt Weber and Obuibo Mbstpo, who do indeed have a generic policy on deletion. That just might be better than current practice. There are also errors in some delete votes above which I will indicate by specific comment.--Abd (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (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.