Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There for Tomorrow


 * 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. John254 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There for Tomorrow

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

Struggling to find any reliable coverage of this band, only a profile on allmusic seems to exist, aside from that very little. Searched google news. MTV etc, only thing that seems to come up are listings. neon white talk 17:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article notes, the band charted in the United States, and so meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:MUSIC, .   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 04:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of any charting hit on the Hot 100, billboard.com confirms this. Top Heatseekers is not considered under guidelines, a 'national music chart' refers to the primary chart for any country in the US this must be the Hot 100. --neon white talk 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet as, could you please point me to a Wikipedia guideline to back that up, because WP:CHART doesn't mention that from what I can see.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a nonsensically high bar for a band to have to pass before having considered "charted". Billboard's specific charts (genre specific and market specific) are intended to indicate the best-selling groups within smaller markets, and these are just as legitimate in demonstrating a group's importance. Now, with a charting album, coverage in Allmusic and AP, an album on Hopeless Records, an MTVU award, and several national tours (with Anberlin, most recently, among others)...what's your Heymann standard here? Chubbles (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, techincally every article should have multiple secondary sources, as specified at WP:N, criteria at WP:MUISC is just additional, HOT 100 is the national chart in the US comparable with other national charts, we have never considered genre specific charts, download charts, store charts or any other specialist chart to be adaquate. The logic being that those charts are not as noted as the HOT 100. Evidence of coverage of national tours is needed. Small non notable awards arent considered. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – This band meets the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1: Adding to the Alternative Press and Allmusic coverage, I have added references to full articles about the band in the Orlando Sentinel and The Blade. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the 'Alternative Press' source can be considered 'significant' coverage, it's two paragraphs at most. We would need some evidence of the others to verify them. --neon white talk 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Blade article is 15 paragraphs and totals 707 words. The Sentinel article is 28 paragraphs, 581 words. Both are entirely about Maika Maile and his band. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2008 (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.