Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint John and the Revelations


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint John and the Revelations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable band. No allmusic entry. Two releases only available via internet, both on self-published label. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:BAND. TheClashFan (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable band without any independent sources, as such it fails WP:BAND. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it goes without saying that the sockpuppetry case againt the nominator should not affect the outcome of this discussion. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, would not seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep Hello. I apologize, I don't understand the formatting on this page, so excuse this weird entry. My name is Amanda and I have been updating the Saint John and the Revelations page. I work for a PR firm that is now handling the band. Although I work for PR, I have endeavored to just keep this page fact based in the WikiPedia tradition. The article is here so people who are interested in the band can find more details about them without the fluff that people like myself usually have to write. I will in no way, shape, or form, use any hyperbole on it. Only facts.
 * The band is not signed to a label, nor will they probably ever be (the record labels are not good for making money right now), and because of that they will never chart either. They do however have hundreds of thousands of fans all around the world, and they are about to gain a lot more. They have just signed deals to have their music put into two major network TV shows, the HBO show Entourage, and are also getting picked up by dozens of radio stations every day, especially after being featured on KCRW.
 * They have been featured in music print publications in Canada, and will soon be featured more in the U.S., their new base of operation. We are trying to dig up links, but are unsure if they are online.
 * Please let me know if there is anything I can do to change the entry to avoid deletion, I really have tried to just keep it focused on facts and not some fluff fan/vanity page. If you have any doubts as to their notability, please look them up online and/or visit their MySpace profile, They have a lot more comments and fans there than many signed/charted acts. They have hundreds of thousands of fans that think the band are truly notable, the music industry and charts just haven't caught up with a way of tracking completely independent artists that are doing very well.
 * Thank you. Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.106.253 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hullo Amanda. Unfortunately Wikipedia also has not come up with a way of dealing with completely independent artists that are doing very well, outside of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Wikipedia's version of "notable" depends on these, rather than popularity or number of fans. As you can see, probably the most sure-fire chance of inclusion lies with non-trivial pieces on the artist, in reliable sources independent of the artist. They don't have to be online, but it does look like this band is not yet "notable" enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion at this time. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, this might be ok then. We are getting copies of regional and national Canadian music magazines that have mentioned the band, and I'll be able to cite from those. I should have a couple of them within a week. I misunderstood what I could cite and thought I could only cite linkable articles, I'm still learning more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -Amanda


 * Delete as not satisfying notability criteria. WP:USERFY to User:76.90.106.253 on request to allow Amanda time to find resources and build the article. If after a month the article is still not acceptable remove from the User:76.90.106.253 subpage.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to an earlier-than-usual re-nomination, if necessary. Basically per SilkTork above, except that since there is a good faith assertion here that adequate sourcing exists, i do not see why the article should not remain in article space and be improved in the usual way. It's also the least confusing option for a new editor, and the most convenient way other editors can look at the sourcing going forward. 86.44.34.151 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (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.