Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far (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 by clear consensus. At least most of the bands are notable. Closing is subject to re-listing of individual bands that are clearly not notable, or merging of the side project, Onelinedrawing. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Far (band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * - No major mentions.
 * - Side project with little indicated notability; 3 mentions, none comprehensive.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.
 * - Nothing but one source.

Alright, phew. Basically, my main issues with all of the above; no sources equals no notability (no criteria are met). At most I could find about 3 sources, which were the only ones; honestly, is a band's notability proven if it has had one article written about it on 3 sites? This doesn't seem like comprehensive coverage to me at all. One source does call them an "emo icon", but I can't find any evidence of that... Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep band articles, merge others into these and redirect Allmusic has a bio and 2 reviews for Far, and there's this from the San Diego Weekly Reader. Allmusic also have a bio and a review for Gratitude, and a bio and 2 reviews for onelinedrawing. Onleinedrawing (the easiest to search for of the three) also has these:, . The band articles should stay, the others should be merged into these and redirected.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the bands, merge the rest. Personally I don't think all these bands should have been grouped together like that, but hey. The bands have got multiple albums released on notable labels, reviews from reliable sources. Plenty to pass WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the bands. For the others, delete anything that isn't cited, merge anything that is. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the bands, merge the rest -- as per the previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the bands: Most all meet at least one of the 12 criteria listed at WP:Music - that is item 5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels".
 * Keep all. The bands are definitely notable, as are Matranga and Lopez. The album-articles are rubbish, but sufficient for enWP. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 16:39, 23 October 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.