Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Ephesus

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm unwilling to declare an outright keep on a non-article that noone saying "keep" or "keep/cleanup" has actually put a trace of content-production effort into. At present, this is a speedy for failing to have a)a single sentence in it about the band and b)an assertion of notability. -Splash^talk 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ephesus[edit]

Dear Ephesus is a non-notable, now defunct emo band. This article has been tagged for verifiability of importance since January 12. Brian G. Crawford 02:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as emptanity (empty vanity). Royboy crashfan 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Band seems to be borderline notable. dbtfz ^talk 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two albums on Amazon, AllMusic entry and [1] gives 14,000 hits. I've been routed bringing bands to Afd that were far less notable. If Pretty Mary Sunshine gets an article, so does this band. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I don't doubt that someone has heard of them, I wonder about the rationale for keeping an article that consists of three short lists and one sentence on a band that no longer exists, especially since it's been tagged for almost two months and no one has seen fit to make something out of it. Brian G. Crawford 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wknight94. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The All-Music Guide entry has less information than this skeletal article has (except for a song list of 2 albums), which is usually a good indicator of non-notability. Just in case, I've wikified the existing material and added an IMDb link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand Need more information on the band itself, how it started, how it ended.--Vercalos 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand: This band was semi-famous as a Christian Emo band. Surely some Christian editors would be able to expand this article. MikeDockery 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wknight. Logophile 11:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Cleanup needed. per Wknight94 Compu terjoe 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets more than one notability criterion for bands; why is there even a discussion? Monicasdude 14:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defunct and not that notableMadCow257 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly notable, as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope we're not going to have an article for every band that ever put out an album Jim62sch 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, just every band that put out two albums. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has an entry on Allmusic.com, albeit no write-up. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two albums at amazon means they earn a place here. -- JJay 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline, I don't see any evidence that this meets it. The hurdle is "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The labels are conspicuously absent from the discography, and the notion that merely having an entry on allmusic equates to a keep is a new one indeed. I note that it's called "semi-famous" and "[f]airly notable" but no evidence of this has been presented. Thus unless material indicating otherwise added to the article, delete as not meeting the widely accepted guideline. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: That two-album/major label criterion is sufficient to establish notability, but not always necessary. There are, for example, any number of artists whose notability was undeniably established by their debut albums (if not before). Jeff Buckley, for example, was clearly established as notable with his debut release, Blind Faith even before it. A single guideline is not a litmus test. Monicasdude 03:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not being more specific, however I assumed it was clear: The phrase "two albums" appears three times in the above discussion, so I highlighted that it has not been shown to meet that criterion. I also explicitly state that it has not been shown to meet other criteria. The comparisons you've made are facile, as both of them drew large amounts of coverage in independant media. If it's shown in the article that this ban has drawn coverage or that the albums have been released on a label per above, I'll happily change my recomendation. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I meant to says the band was "semi-famous" within the Christian community. I could've been more clear on that. They had a short mention in Christianity Today, which is a large, mainstream magazine in that community. They've had several full-length articles in HM - The Hard Music Magazine. They were featured in Cross Rhythms, a British Christian-music website. I'm not sure what the readership is on these, but I think, combined with the short mention in Christianity Today, it's enough to establish that the band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. As for the label information, the band released albums on independent Christian label BulletProof Music. They were on BulletProof at the same time as, and toured with, Squad Five-O, a band that is notable enough to be listed on MTV.com. What that means for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure, but I think all of this evidence supports the notion that this band was "semi-famous," at least within the Christian community. Whether or not that is notable enough for Wikipedia, I'll leave for others to decide. My personal opinion (as voted above), is yes, it is. MikeDockery 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kappa 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.