Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertical Church Band


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vertical Church Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO doesn't save them even though there are two marginally notable members who are also solo artists. Three albums and one EP but little written about the subject. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that the article was created by an WP:SPI WP:SPA editor who works for the label to which the band is signed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This clearly passes band because they have significant coverage from reliable sources.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND —Мандичка YO 😜 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BAND which states a band may be notable if it "is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." This band appears to contain at least three. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep In addition to the reviews in multiple reliable sources, there is also an Allmusic biography on the band. Also, there are several brief news reports on the band by Cross Rhythms. Significant coverage is clearly demonstrated. Also, per 's rationale, the band contains at least three independently notable musicians.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I don't mean to detract from your other rationales, isn't an AllMusic listing WP:ROUTINE, like a person being listed in the phone book? Or a film being listed in IMDb, which is decidedly not considered a sign of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An Allmusic listing - yes, though not quite like IMDb, which has most of its content user-generated. However, an Allmusic biography - no. Those are less common. Many artists briefly listed in the database do not have biographies written about them. The bios are written by a professional staff for a publication with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So what if Allmusic is very extensive in its coverage? Are you suggesting that a source with extensive coverage automatically means that the notability of the subjects the source discusses are automatically less notable? If you have issues with the reliability of Allmusic, then please bring up the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. But I don't think you'll get far, as numerous discussions have determined that content written by Allmusic staff is about as reliable as you can get.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-reading what I wrote I realize that I might come across as very challenging,, for which I apologize. I was merely trying to show why Allmusic coverage is different than just routine blurbs.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "So what if Allmusic is very extensive in its coverage? Are you suggesting that a source with extensive coverage automatically means that the notability of the subjects the source discusses are automatically less notable?" Yes, in comparison to media where inclusion involves some degree of selectivity, inclusion of an entity in any medium where inclusion is WP:ROUTINE for entities of like or similar type is, ipso facto, not an indication of notability. I am not notable because my name is in the phone book. Inclusion in Martindale-Hubbell does not contribute to a finding that a U.S. lawyer is notable. Inclusion in the state's list of health inspection reports doesn't indicate that a restaurant is notable. If the presence of a biography on AllMusic does involve some selectivity, then that's a different story, but if it didn't, then, yes, it wouldn't be a valid argument for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. There is selectivity, though, in who gets an Allmusic bio. For instance, right now I'm creating an article for the band A Hill to Die Upon, which does not have any Allmusic bio or review, but has been featured in Terrorizer and HM, and been reviewed by HM. This band is clearly notable, but has nothing but a discography listing on Allmusic.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BAND "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide write-ups in RSes that support that statement? MUSICBIO is not an absolute expectation of inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase that so that it makes sense? You want a reliable source for what? That they have made it in a national music chart? shows that they charted]. I'm not sure if that's good enough for you but it seems fine to me. Btw, I went to wp:SPI and didn't see a case opened for Ivettealexandra. You have also failed to provide any reasonable, logical, or (for that matter) any basis that they are a sock puppet. You will have to pardon that my crystal ball is currently broken and I will be in need of evidence for your assertion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it doesn't make sense. It's common for editors such as you to mistake MUSICBIO as a stand-alone criteria. There is a discussion there that the majority of editors believe it is not a stand-alone criteria that a subject can meet, but a guideline for determining how a subject might meet WP:GNG.
 * No SPI because I meant WP:SPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out above that it meets GNG. It's common for what? You should probably not go in that direction. And SPA? Yeah you should probably go back and read WP:SPATG. While they may technically be a SPA, they only made their first edit 5 or 6 days ago.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should keep your personal comments to yourself. There was a claim that it met GNG, but that has not been proven. I did read SPA. Nothing new. Is there something specific you think I'm missing? The editor admitted on on the commons that she works for this band's record label. She's only edited articles associated with that record label. She is clearly in COI and is obviously a SPA. I have not time for your vague commentary. Unless you can make a complete argument, I will ignore you here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a full argument here. Above. It is mentioned that the group "is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." This in addition charting on a Country's national music chart. Both fall under WP:BAND. The case has also been made reasonably that it passes GNG. There's that reasonable case vs your case. The only thing compelling that you have offered is that the creator has a COI and is a SPA. However since they are new and they have so few edits per WP:SPATG it's a bit piss poor to label them a SPA. As for the COI, I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Also they have released 3 Albums with Provident Label Group which is a Division of Sony Music Entertainment. Per WP:BAND "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. The article meets three of the criteria for bands/musical ensemble's, which can be verified through coverage in independent sources. In addition to that are the sources highlighted in the above discussions.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It meets general notability guidelines by having reviews in "independently reliable publications", hence showing "significant coverage" of their music. Thus, it deems the article and subsequent album articles notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:29, 23 May 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.