Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Day of School (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 delete. The rough consensus here is that presence on a single event of The Kelly Clarkson Show is insufficient grounds for notability. Based on the WP:NOTNEWS policy, that argument is rooted in policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

First Day of School (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

First Day of School (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Their sole claim to fame is a piece on The Kelly Clarkson Show where they were surprised by their idols Backstreet Boys, which is about the Backstreet Boys than them. They are aged 12 and 9, and do not have significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - As a band under this name, it is too soon for an article because all they have is a single song and one talk show appearance. It turns out that each of the young bros could qualify for his own article someday, as each is a working kid actor with a lot of credits. But this band article badly exaggerates "award winning" (all I could find is the non-notable and self-promoting Young Entertainer Awards) and the influence of their charitable donations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - They have been featured on multiple national web sites and social media for their charity work having worked for two years straight to raise funds for kids. The fact that Kelly Clarkson herself called them to come on her show, proves that famous media are aware of them and therefore relevant. I contacted them to get a thought, and they are being announced this week as part of the Boys of Summer tour which is the largest tour in the country and their charity has dozens of big celebrities that have joined since the show. The Young Entertainer Awards are the top awards for young actors with Brad Pitt, Scarlett Johansen, Morgan Freeman, Patrick Stewart all having been part of it. Just because they are not adults does not make their hard work unworthy of attention. I put forward that if the LA Times, Yahoo, the Guardian, Kelly Clarkson, and others feel they are newsworthy enough for their editors and national television, then they should qualify. Plus, with all the negative things going on in the world, positive news worthy Articles are more important than ever. CaseyMcCreedy (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Watch out for logical fallacies. Wikipedia has many articles about kid entertainers and positive trends. This discussion is about verifiability and notability. And it may be a good idea to disclose your personal connection with the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete When Getty Images is cited as a source, it's on thin ice. Positivity has no place in wikipedia, we're here to be neutral, covering everything from the Holocaust to cat memes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Totally agree. I was just expressing that I was happy that it was a positive post. If the inclusion of Getty is not relevant, then it can be removed as it was simply added to be thorough. The other news agencies, in my opinion should more than enough to show enough relevance to be included on Wikipedia. I am not related to them but am aware of them and have reached out to verify information as stated before. CaseyMcCreedy (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.