Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Future


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern Future

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A new (founded last year) music production company that doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Creator has asserted that the publication of some of their music tracks by a third party publisher counts as a reliable third-party source, and has pointed to a blog entry, but merely having music published doesn't count as sufficient notability under WP:BAND. The closest thing to a third-party source in the article is a blog entry that includes the name of the group in a track listing, hardly in-depth coverage. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss this page. After taking a look at notability under Music guidelines I believe the article meets the standard under Composers, specifically #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." - the 2 remixes listed are examples of where lyrics were delivered by the original artist and all the music was written by Modern Future. #3 under composers could fit as well since it was OMD and The Wombats that released the music: "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria." It's worth noting that these are pretty notable artists. For example, OMD has sold over 40 million albums. --PingreePark (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any signs that the remixes are notable per our guidelines for notability of musical compositions. And it seems a stretch to say that the remixes were the basis for a "later composition" by those artists; by the nature of a remix, the remix is the later composition based on the works of those artists, not the other way 'round. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The song "Your Body Is A Weapon" would fit under the notability of music compositions I believe - It's currently #16 on Sirius XM's Alt Nation chart. While it isn't the remix that's charting I think your reading of "for" is possibly too narrow - this was an official remix of a charting song (it was "for" the notable composition) and would definitely belong on the page for the track once that's made. The release it was on also included notable acts such as Diplo and Afrojack. Considering the level of the company I think Modern Future's composition is notable. PingreePark (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be arguing is that Modern Future inherits the notability of non-MF versions of the song and from being on a list that includes notable acts. I suggest you read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand why notability (in the Wikipedia sense) does not flow like that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only half my argument - I don't mind dropping that portion. The first part of my rebuttal holds I believe. PingreePark (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, both halves were assuming some inheritance of notability; you are somehow trying to get them notability for the success of a version of the song that they did not work on, because they also worked on another version of the song. But even barring that, the first half argument is dependent on a single broadcaster's Alt Music chart being considered one of the national or significant music or sales charts, and if you check what that links to (link copied from WP:NSONGS), you will find that the Sirius XM chart is not there and does not qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The song is also currently #48 on the US Alt Chart.PingreePark (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Billboard's Alternative Songs chart, I believe that chart only goes to #40... but it's a moot point anyway, as that's not Modern Future's song on the chart. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone else care to chime in? I think the page should be kept. It's been up here for a week now. PingreePark (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The relisted discussion is now a week old.PingreePark (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete' per nomination. Maybe they will be notable one day, but as for now... noisy  jinx  huh? 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources hugely fail WP:RS. That means the article fails WP:V. Even setting that aside, the argument for notability is a pretty big stretch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 6 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.