Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faded horizon


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Faded horizon

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable band, no reliable independent references, fails WP:BAND, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, but would prefer Speedy delete instead of an AfD. -- Σ ☭ ★  05:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No reliable independent references.--Dmol (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (not speedy though) per WP:BAND. Unsigned band that hasn't charted.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. Could probably be speedied due to promotional tone.  Dismas |(talk) 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not seem to have any coverage in reliable sources, nor does it fulfil any of our criteria for musicians and ensembles. doom gaze   (talk)  01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment there is something fishy about this AfD - it was originally created by mistake in an attempt to get the capitalisation of the article fixed, but I can find no trace of the original. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is NO reason why this article should be deleted. It has plenty of well known sources and references. Please understand Faded Horizon is a very hardworking band, and is deserving of this page. See the article to see what they have accomplished. Thanks 9gn9ztdd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * — 9gn9ztdd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, being hardworking is not one of wikipedia's criteria for band notability. If there are reliable sources that discuss the band, please supply them.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * HOWEVER, FADED HORIZON MEETS THE FOLLOWING: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Faded Horizon has been in both Bellmore Life Newspaper and Merrick Life Newspaper. Here is an online version of the article.
 * http://merricklife.com/issue/february-24-2011/article/bellmore-merricks-faded-horizon-comes-into Sincerely, 9gn9ztdd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They are also featured on Cyber-FM Radio as band of the month
 * http://www.cyber-fm.com/page/Spotlight 9gn9ztdd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * L&M Publications (Life Newspapers) is an online community newspaper and hardly qualifies as a "mainstream newspaper" (WP:SOURCES). Cyber-FM appears to have a similar low profile. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. THE ARTICLE I POSTED FROM L&M ALSO APPEARED IN A PHYSICAL NEWSPAPER THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AT KING KULLEN SUPERMARKET. FOR EXAMPLE, NEWSDAY ARTICLES APPEAR BOTH ONLINE AND IN PHYSICAL PAPERS. THE ARTICLE FROM L&M ALSO APPEARED IN THE PHYSICAL NEWSPAPERS BELLMORE LIFE AND MERRICK LIE. WHY DON'T YOU BUY A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE PAPER, OR BETTER YET I CAN MAIL IT TO YOU. I'D BE HAPPY TO MAIL YOU A PHYSICAL COPY SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT IT'S A PHYSICAL PAPER. ALSO, WHERE DOES IT SAYS THE PAPER HAS TO BE "MAINSTREAM"? YOU'RE PUTTING QUOTES AROUND MAINSTREAM AS IF IT SAYS IT IN THE CRITERIA AS A REQUIREMENT. 9gn9ztdd (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)9gn9ztdd
 * WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING. doom gaze   (talk)  12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because WWGB didn't do his research and doesn't realize the paper can be physically purchased as well. And it doesn't need to be mainstream. That's not a qualification.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 May 2011 (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.