Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future World Music (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This discussion primarily hinged on whether WP:MUSIC#10 was enough to overcome WP:GNG. The discussion was made complicated by pfahstrom finding it neccessary to reply to everyone who disagreed with them which made it hard to distinguish the true level of participation here. In addition, the nominator has nominated many articles in this category en masse which makes it difficult to know how much effort was put into their nomination. Ultimately, though, I lean on User:Nihonjoe's comment which is the strongest keep argument made and I find it to be solid but weak. It hasn't swayed any of the other three !delete participants afterwards. The consensus leans to delete. v/r - TP 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Future World Music
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep (more complete vote reasoning added below.) [EDIT:] Added four independent sources, and I argue the article satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #10, which for the purposes of the genre of trailer music I interpret to include appearances in multiple trailers for independently notable films. [OLD INFO:]and someone find some good sources. (I'm not volunteering.) A song from Future World Music came up in my movie soundtracks Pandora station today, so I came to look it up on Wikipedia and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. Music featured worldwide in trailers of notable films is itself notable as far as I'm concerned. Also, the article creator on the talk page claims not to be associated with the company, but just a fan of trailer music. I believe the article was created in good faith. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I went in and added two LA Times citations after all. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. I looked at the references you added. Your first reference is a blog post and this is normally not considered for the purposes of establishing notability as blogs are "self-published" sources and not subject to editorial review. It also only mentioned FWM in passing. Your second reference is also not much good as the only real reference to FWM is a quote from a company officer and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Also, FYI, multiple references from the same source are considered a single source. Multiple sources are required to establish notability. -- HighKing ++ 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look closely, you'll see that the LA Times Blogs article is essentially an extra news article by the same person as the LA Times print article of the same date, containing information that was deemed too long to fit in the print version of the article. It's an online extension of the article, not a personal self-published blog: It is published by the LA Times.
 * Also, the print article does contain a "real reference" in the article's subtitle: "Two Steps From Hell, Future World Music, Audiomachine and other companies specialize in scoring for previews." Article author Emily Rome is completely independent from the subject: She has written many articles for the LA Times on many different topics. Anyway, I also added a source from Trailer Music News, which focuses on this subgenre of music. And two sources from print books.
 * I also argue that for the purposes of this subgenre of music, appearances in multiple trailers for independently notable films satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria #10. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your opinion/argument that the LA Times Blogs article is essentially an extra news article doesn't sway me. It's still a blog post. -- HighKing ++ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Completely unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing ++ 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  08:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The text of HighKing's vote does not take into consideration changes in the article that were implemented in direct response to the issues raised. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I reiterate My !vote is Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing ++ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Doing a quick search, and no independant references come up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you read the discussion above, as well as the current article, and see that there are now four independent references cited in the article? —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep. The "Their movie trailer music is proudly commercial" article definitely qualifies as more than passing coverage and helps toward establishing notability. The blog entry from Rome is only a passing mention and wouldn't help toward establishing notability. The interview on Trailer Music News is a weak help toward establishing notability. I found an article on a Greek gaming news site about groups they would like to see composing game music, and FWM was discussed for a section of the article. I don't know Greek, so someone would have to help establish if this contributes toward notability. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Pfahlstrom regarding WP:MUSICBIO, and combined with what I indicated above, I think that makes it a solid Keep. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments on above claim. WP:MUSICBIO is about notable productions. The films are notable, that does not extend to the trailer. Future World Music did not "performed music for a work of media that is notable". They built a library that was part of was later used for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Trailer Music does not get any special treatment. it is just another "genre". duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Trailers for notable films are discussed in multiple reliable and notable sources at the time they are released (as in this USA Today article), making the trailers themselves notable. And "performed music for a work of media" is just another way of saying "recorded music and then had that recording featured in a work of media." —pfahlstrom (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable private business. The sources are passing mentions, interviews or otherwise not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete MUSICBIO only makes the claim that the subject may be notable, not that the subject is notable. GNG really must be met. The subject does not meet GNG as only one article is present, and no additional articles can be found, that discuss the subject at length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep — Today I extensively rewrote this article in order to attempt to address the WP:PROMO concerns and follow more of a WP:NPOV. I invite other voters to view the current article's state. And here are my arguments for why the article should be kept.
 * 1) The two Emily Rome articles for the LA Times, published on the same day, together constitute the most notable reliable source. The articles discuss the genre of trailer music, using the examples of four prominent production studios working in the genre, including Future World Music.
 * 2) There is extensive ongoing coverage of Future World Music over numerous years in the musical sub-culture publication Trailer Music News, with multiple citations in the article. Most of these articles are written by a single editor, but two are by other writers for the publication. This is not as compelling a source as the LA Times, but I would count the articles in aggregate as a single source. It also meets a criterion in WP:NMUSIC, discussed below.
 * 3) I have added more critical information from Lecturer in Music at the University of Leeds Ian Sapiro's book cited in the article. Trailer music is not a focus of the book, but the coverage on these two pages is more than a passing reference as he explains Future World Music's business model and includes detailed timings for how their music is used in the Stardust trailer. Therefore, I consider this to be an additional reliable source.
 * 4) Furthermore, there are three guidelines from WP:NMUSIC that I believe relevant to this discussion. Now, WP:NMUSIC states, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." I choose to consider these criteria as rules of thumb to inform this discussion.
 * 5) Criterion #1 under WP:NMUSIC says: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture." This criterion is satisfied by the Music Trailer News coverage as discussed above. Trailer music is a musical sub-culture, and I cannot find a publication that focuses on this sub-culture more prominently than Trailer Music News does. Now, trailer music admittedly does not have much of a following outside the sub-culture, but it has been deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I consider this criterion satisfied.
 * 6) WP:NMUSIC says: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The third clause I have addressed above when talking about multiple sources. The second clause about a local scene of a city does not apply in this case. The first clause is the one that is relevant: Emily Rome's article focusing on four prominent trailer music production companies includes Future World Music. Therefore, I consider this criterion satisfied.
 * 7) WP:NMUSIC says: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"
 * First I address that caveat: This is not the "only claim" because of the other claims previously mentioned, and the multiple cited appearances in different trailers. Now, the applicability of the bulk of this claim is more debatable than the prior two, since their music has appeared in the trailers rather than the films. However, as Future World Music's genre is precisely trailer music, having that music be used in prominent trailers fulfills the spirit of this criterion. Indeed, music is more prominent within a trailer than a film, taking up a much higher percentage of the total running time, making it more noticeable. It was argued above that trailers are not notable, but I responded that trailers often prompt the publication of news articles upon their release, such as the USA Today article I mentioned.
 * "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" I thus deem satisfied. Note that the criterion gives the example of performing music in a film, of which one interpretation would be that the film shows video of the performers playing the song, but this is not the only interpretation that would fulfill the criterion.
 * The aggregate of all of these arguments is why I believe the article should be kept. —pfahlstrom (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Nope, WP:MUSIC only applies to musicians and composers. This is a company/organization and as such, needs to meet different criteria. My !vote is still to Delete because not only does it fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG, the article is still marketing and Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. I also removed all the puffery in relation to the "CEO". -- HighKing ++ 22:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Future World Music is essentially the stage name of musician and composer Armen Hambar. He has no presence outside of Future World Music, and Future World Music's releases are all produced by him and nearly all composed by him (though you removed that information from the article). Hambar and Future World Music are one and the same. Removing this information from the article loses important context.
 * Perhaps the article should be written with more of a focus on Hambar rather than his company. Something like "Armen Hambar is a composer, producer, and synthesizer musician focusing on trailer music, released under the name of his production company, Future World Music." ? —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Make a choice. Either dump this article and write one for Armen Hambar or keep this article but stop turning it into an article on Hambar. Notability is not inherited or conferred, each must stand alone. Because this article is about FWM, then it must be notable in its own right and not by "borrowing" or "leaning" on Hambar. -- HighKing ++ 12:28, 21 June 2017 (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.