Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thebandwithnoname


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thebandwithnoname

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject fails the notability standard set in WP:MUSICBIO. Before I nominated this subject, I searched online to attempt to find some news sources regarding this band to attempt to establish its notability, and could only find these groups of articles that even referenced this band: an article about the band's breakup, and several articles from Christian Today about the individual band members themselves after the band broke up. At the present time, none of the band members seem to have articles themselves on Wikipedia, and I could not find information to establish their individual notability either. Also, each of this band's albums may fail WP:NALBUM as well; each of this band's albums are redirects to this article, and not standalone articles. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A PROD would have done as well, but clearly fails notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on the sources found by The Cross Bearer. I hadn't looked for sources. My bad. The crossrhythms interviews are enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Big Keep A PROD would not have done well! I must show you all Cross Rhythms with four stories on the group and six if not seven reviews of their music, also, a Louder Than the Music interview and a review, making them satisfy GNG and BAND. This band clearly passes notability guidelines with regards to this encyclopedic project.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the notability claim here. Other than the articles at Cross Rhythms (one source), the other sources are only covering the subject around breakup time ... as if they their only claim to fame in other sources than Cross Rhythms was breaking up. Steel1943  (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Louder Than the Music started circa 2008-09, where they would not have been around to review their previous offerings, while Cross Rhythms was the leading Christian music magazine in the United Kingdom, per CCM Sources, presently the biggest on-line Christian music publication in the United Kingdom. The Cross Rhythms' and Cross Rhythms sources cover them in extensive detail, where it lends credibility to the claim of significance, with regards to the band in question.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MUSICBIO: "...[the subject being] the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..." is the one criterion we both seem to be debating, but the only source that I see publishing anything "non-trivial" is Cross Rhythms, making this subject, in my mind, fail the "multiple" part of that statement since it was all coming from only one source. (Also, what is going on with that multi-WP:PING you just did there? Besides Walter Görlitz, who has already participated in this AfD, none of the other editors have ever edited this article or its talk page.) Steel1943  (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if most of the coverage is about the band's breakup, there is enough to warrant an article. Over three separate sources discuss the group, which should satisfy notability concerns.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These are the three sources, mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, that I am using to support my vote: Cross Rhythms, Christian Today, and Louder Than the Music. Two of these sources, CR and CT, have published multiple, non-trivial articles on this band.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy close to "no consensus". I feel that a very blatant WP:CANVASS violation just happened above, making it target difficult to form a consensus here. Steel1943  (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cross Bearer often solicits me for comment, but if you go through previous deletion discussions where they asked me for my comments, you will see that I do not always agree with them.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Either way, "no consensus" defaults to "keep" on here, but since I still have my opinions, I'm not going to withdraw. My point above is that it is obvious that pinged specific editors who have strong ties to this subject matter, so it looked like canvassing to me per the guideline. In fact, you have seemingly validated my concern about that editor; per the way the Ping was set up, to me, it seemed like a "template of editors" that the editor uses to Ping, especially considering that one of them already participated in the discussion before the Ping even happened...  Steel1943  (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this "template of editors" use by The Cross Bearer before. I personally don't mind getting pinged for these discussions, as this Christian music is one of my main areas of focus here on Wikipedia. I've often seen other editors ignore The Cross Bearer's pings, though I haven't seen anyone complain before. Since The Cross Bearer below has stated that they will stop pinging in the future, I think this issue is resolved.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have often disagreed with Mr. Gorlitz on matters in deletion discussions. 3family6 and myself were at odds with each other in the Indie Vision Music deletion discussion, where we were on opposite ends of the spectrum. If this failed the notability test, then I would have come down on the or come around to the deletion side of the debate. Another editor nominated Foreverlin, for deletion, where it is hugely similar to this article in question. With all do regards, I will no longer ping or reply to, when it comes to deletion discussions in the future, since it got misconstrued as canvassing.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Once the article is referenced and cleaned-up, it should be fine on Wiki - given that there are more than one source about that band, but if left "as-is" I feel it should be deleted. There are a few editors I've worked with in the past that might be helpful to this situation.  I don't mind being brought into these discussions. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - If there's some kind of an issue, then why can't we just have this application for deletion removed and another restarted, based on the new article?


 * I went in and referenced everything per the sources I found, with inline citations. Thirteen sources from two publications establishes GNG and BAND.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I found some additional coverage by Christian Today.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Big Delete. The given references are insufficiently notable. With only two unique publications among them, it is doubtful that the band's presence was non-trivial. It also seems the band has unfortunately ceased to exist. Asgardiator Iä! Iä! 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - did you see the coverage provided by those two publications? It is FAR from trivial, at least from Cross Rhythms. The argument here is whether there are enough different publications to warrant an article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe Original Research but this band has reformed and is now playing classic rock covers in Dorset, UK. They were at my local pub recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a different band.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  02:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources meet notability guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 16 September 2015 (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.