Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Funeral


 * 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. Fails WP:BAND. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rose Funeral
(Was formerly mis-listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Rose Funeral)


 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am adding the following to the nomination, as it would make no sense without the main article:
 * -- Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article deleted per its own afd Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Has only been in existence for a 5 years, there aren't any notable band members or recordings. Hourick (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - This is a talk page and should thus go to MfD. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  09:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably the intention was to nominate the article, rather than its talk page....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed... Hope it ddn't break anything.
 * Delete I doubt that the age of the band is relevant, the lack of notability is. Notorious, yes, notable, no. They've got one reliable source, which is hardly significant coverage. Also, see my comments on the article talk page.  Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck out above !vote - it was referring to the talk page rather than the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability 174.55.2.138 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment How so? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability on the basis that they are signed to Metal Blade Records and working on their third release. If Dirty Little Rabbits can have a page, then so can Rose Funeral. User:willisx90  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.12.76 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Dirty Little Rabbits is notable because it contains two (albeit questionably) notable members, therefore passing criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Rose Funeral does not. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added List of members of Rose Funeral to the nomination. It's already part of it's own afd, but it makes sense to list it here as well. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article has been deleted per its own afd.Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am protecting the article because I just removed vandalism that resulted in the article being tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. Dloh  cierekim  16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no significant sources, no notable members, no notable recordings. - A7xandquantumtheory —Preceding unsigned comment added by A7xandquantumtheory (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Just claiming this band "fails notability" per WP:BAND without actually reading the criterion is simply stupid. Rose Funeral at the very least passes criteria 1, 4 and maybe 5. Possibly others. I'd like to explain criteria 5, Metal Blade Records has a long history and has signed countless notable bands. Rose Funeral has two albums out (One on Metal Blade, one on Siege of Amida that apparently was re-released by Candlelight) and is about to release their third this year on Metal Blade. I know, that is a future event, but what is the point of deleting a band only to recreate the article later on? Also, Rose Funeral possibly also passes criteria 7. Do I need to mention the "UNO" incident? That has also certainly contributed coverage of this band in various news and magazine outlets. Joe Capricorn (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Criteria 1 requires significant coverage on reliable sources, the only reliable sources I can see cited are about.com and allmusic. Together, they are not exactly a significant amount.  Criteria 4: What reliable source would that be? Citation 5: requires two albums on major labels, you've only stated the significance of one of them.  Criteria 7: How so?  As for the Uno incident, see WP:FAME, for which I stick by my summary that notoriety is not necessarily notability.  Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Citation 5: Their debut album on Siege of Amida Records. I believe they are a part of Ferret records but this could be a gray area. If not, then Citation 5 does not apply to Rose Funeral... for now. They are working on a third album and that will most likely be released on Metal Blade, so if Rose Funoral(sic) is deleted, they'll be re-added later on. I could try to dig up links about criteria 1 and 4 but I don't feel like it, since in all honesty I don't care about Rose Funeral as a band, just the coverage of the Uno incident. Likewise this is likely my last post on the topic. Joe Capricorn (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding Criteria 4- how exactly should we define a "reliable source"? By Googling "Rose Funeral Tour we see info from Metal Blade Records itself and some other websites.  If a "reliable source" is expected to be some international news center then that would result in a ton of bands missing this criteria. (User talk: willisx90)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment: OK, make that a "reliable third party source", as in one not affiliated with the tour, which was what I was intending by my comment. Surely that is a logical extension of the GN criteria? Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:Reliable sources &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete. The vandalism is extreme, and will likely not stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This from one of the . Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not I edited the page at one point does not make my point any less valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: As I added to the references, the majority of the content of this article was originally copied from, as of. Since then, it looks as if content might have been copied backwards and forward numerous times, with very little attempt at attribution. I'm not sure what to do with this discovery, as last.fm bios are released under CC-BY-SA. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. I am concerned that the initial mislisting and the circumstances leading to the page protection affected proper consideration of the article.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:BAND. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (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.