Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novel American


 * 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   no consensus. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Novel American

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a relevant band. They appear to be unsigned with a only claim to fame been 2 members used to be in paramore. Since when does wikipedia make articles for bands with nothing released. This should either be erased or turned into a redirect to paramore which would allow readers to read about the Farro brothers time in paramore. However I repeat Novel American have no cds as far as I can tell out and it looks like there unsigned. Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I can gather, you don't have to be signed or have anything released to be considered notable. Per WP:BAND (only needing to meet one of the listed criteria) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Article fills this due to both Josh and Zac Farro. Yes, both were in Paramore, but both have article on wikipedia (perhaps that should be checked) making them both independently notable. Also per WP:BAND and, to some extent, WP:GNG, there is enough significant coverage of the band from a number of reliable sources including MTV, NME, The Guardian, Kerrang! , Alternative Press , Spin and  Contactmusic.com  among others. Furthermore, the page statistics are usually pretty high since the article was created; , , , , , , , , . HrZ (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The independent articles about each of the Forro brothers are also unjustified and should be changed to redirects to Paramore. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete coverage of their split from their old band doesn't make this new band notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Coverage of their departures from Paramore is covered in two sentences only. Seeing as how their departures directly contributed to the band's formation, it should be mentioned. Well, that's what I think anyway! HrZ (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the combination of the covrage identified by HrZ and having 2 members of the band who are notable enough for articles is sufficient to meet the WP:BAND notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete/redirect or incubate. The only notable thing about this band is that the guitarist and drummer split from an actually-notable band called Paramore, and that event is more than sufficiently covered there. They have not released anything, and I don't even see any evidence that they've played any gigs. Even if you believe that they will become notable, right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (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 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Hobbes Goodyear above ... delete, definitely way WP:TOOSOON


 * 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.