Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tons of Fun University


 * 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 weighing up the arguments there are sources to support the claims. Does ToFU fall clearly specifically within the scope of WP:MUSIC is unclear as are the arguments that say delete per WP:MUSIC. While the arguments for keeping do show that some specific points listed in WP:MUSIC to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC are there, as are points from alternative guidelines WP:FICTION. Gnangarra 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * refactored for clarity after request, based on discussion points
 * independent sourcing to support notability,
 * WP:MUSIC guideline unclear in this case, specific reason for deletion based on this guideline are unclear, presumed notability
 * WP:MUSIC - a prominent representative of a genre
 * WP:FICTION notability requirements addressed

Tons of Fun University

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, most Ghits are to blogs and concert listings Amaryllis25 '''"Talk to me" 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per earlier prod. This performance ensemble does not appear to have sufficient importance for encyclopedic inclusion. They appear non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * strong Keep i honestly don't understand how their notability is even a question. this is a poetry/music project which has played the Vancouver Folk Music Festival's main stage twice (the festival commissioned them "to create some new work together"), the Regina Music Festival, the Winnipeg Folk Festival, etc. they have an album review and concert review at the live music report. youthink magazine mentions them in an article on the 2005 vancouver folk music festival as "a prime example of a style of music that is quickly gaining popularity: spoken word". a leader-post review of the regina music festival calls them "one of the great discoveries of 2005". of the members themselves, koyczan and mcgee are both National Poetry Slam Individual Grand Champions. and avery won the CBC's 2005 Vancouver Poetry Face-Off, and fronts a band "endorsed by the legend that is Tom Waits" as said in the bbc. --dan 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I have added some of the information raised above into the article which does give some notability to them. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note I've relisted this AfD, as the links provided by Ceyockey and Kingnixon/dan change the argument somewhat, but were provided too late to have been seen by past participants. I'd like to see some fresh eyes on the article before consensus is guaged. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Sorry, but their body of work so far doesn't qualify under any criteria in WP:MUSIC.  Incidentally, the link to TOFU's official site  is offline (404).  PKT (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Spawn Man Review Me! 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note first i'll note that WP:MUSIC says right up front that "the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". that being said, they do meet some of the criteria: "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources" - i don't know if it's a tour per se, but they have performed all over canada and in the US. most of canada's music festivals, for starters. "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style" - of slam poetry/spoken word, as in the youthink quote above. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - not a band, but 2 of them are national slam grand champions. i think part of the problem is they are crossing genres; solely from a rock band pov they are probably not notable, but they are big names in the slam poetry community, and i think get notability here from that, just as if a musician put out a book of poetry. --dan (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable band, or at least rename it to not confuse people! Mbisanz (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One very pertinent issue Dan raises in the problem of genre. There are specific sub-guidelines of WP:N because a musician, an author, and a corporate figure are treated differently by the press - there are different types and volume of press coverage, different benchmarks of achievement, etc, and so more specific WP:N guidelines have been created for each. However, not all articles will fit into one of the established categories, and when this happens it's necessary to use some common sense. I would suggest that because of this particular group's emphasis on spoken word and poetry, their work could also be considered to somewhat overlap with what would normally be covered with WP:FICTION, which has less specific "press coverage" requirements, which this group easily meets. Furthermore, within WP:Music the group also has become a "prominent representative of a notable style" (7) even if that style is more avant-garde, "won or placed in a major music competition " (9) (if we consider major poetry slams music competitions - again, an overlap of categories is evident here), and has certainly been mentioned in enough independent published works to at least approach requirement (1). Again, however, I emphasize that the WP:N guidelines can only be just that, guidelines, especially for this case. -Orphic (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (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.