Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here I Come Falling


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here I Come Falling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Their one major-label album only scraped the bottom of a minor chart, and the sources (outside of an album review, which doesn't count as "substantial coverage") do not seem to establish any other notability. I say delete. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The band charted on a Billboard chart, which is enough to establish notability via WP:MUSIC; I'm not sure why the nominator denigrates this achievement as evidence of notability (the nom seems to have changed his mind about this article for unclear reasons). The charting alone is enough to keep the article, but the band was covered by several music outlets, such as Allmusic, Alternative Press, HM, CCM, and Absolute Punk. (Album reviews, based on longstanding consensus, very much do count as substantial coverage in establishing a band's notability. I occasionally hear people attempt to argue that album reviews establish album notability and not band notability, but this specious argument has never gotten traction in any deletion debate I've been a part of; coverage of a band's work is coverage of the band.) Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, not that it matters, but yes, I did in fact "change my mind" on this article's notability in the two years since I made that edit. Human beings tend to do weird things like that.
 * Second, you might want to look at WP:MUSIC again. For one thing, it says that a band meeting the listed criteria may be notable; things like WP:GNG can still override them. For another, bullet 1 excludes "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings". (So this and this are out.) Album reviews do count as trivial because they are generally done as a matter of procedure, and also because, as the name implies, they tend to focus more on the album than the band. As far as Billboard, I maintain that while they do technically meet bullet 2 because of that, spending one week at number 46 on a genre chart is such a bare minimum of qualification that it's not even worth it. That leaves us with some guy's blog post about their breakup and a single CCM Magazine profile.
 * In conclusion, while they may meet one or two requirements of WP:MUSIC, the lack of significant third-party coverage means that they fail WP:GNG. My position, therefore, is still delete. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiboy42293 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 March 2014‎
 * I don't think coverage by Alternative Press, particularly more than once (even if each individual piece is short), is trivial; this is a top publication in its genre, and it still presses a paper magazine which is distributed nationwide. The suspicion of album reviews, full stop, makes no sense; a third-party book review is evidence of notability of the author, a third-party film review is evidence of notability of the director, a third-party album review is evidence of notability of the musician. Invisiboy's WP:HEY standard, I believe, is well beyond what WP:MUSIC actually requires of bands and musicians, both in terms of charting and coverage via album reviews (both generally regarded as acceptable indicators). Chubbles (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Chubbles. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, just barely poking their head above #50 on a genre specific chart is probably enough to barely scrape them over WP:MUSIC criteria #2. I find the assertion that reviews automatically confer notability to also be a bit weak - if they're substantial and credible then sure, but a capsule review would probably not be substantial enough.  As always, context must be considered.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 14 March 2014 (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.