Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farewell to Juliet

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 merge to Brant Hansen. and Jeff Elbel. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to Juliet[edit]

Non-notable band, with a bit of conflict of interest as well. Little sourcing on the article, and no sources available on Google News. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Two self-released albums of no notability, no reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think I CSD'ed this a few days ago. The content is the same, the band still fails WP:MUSIC. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You speedied this? It seems that this doesn't fit under the speedy deletion requirements. Be careful with CSD's, because a misjudged could be taken as WP:BITEY, and going through an afd, and doing it the long way, is better than turning off new editors to editing wikipedia because of a misused speedy. I know how tempting it is just to put a speedy tag on an article that you think has no chance of making it through afd, but just be careful about it. That said, you're doing a great job! Regards, FingersOnRoids 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No one has yet addressed the points I raised on the discussion board for FTJ. I recognize that I am a newbie and therefore my input is discounted, but I still think the points I raised are valid. I will note that since the AFD page insists on disclosure of a vested interest, I have been a fan of Farewell to Juliet for years. One member of FTJ is now a syndicated radio host (Brant Hansen) and another is a musician who has been in several signed bands and is a freelance journalist who has been published in the Chicago Sun-Times (Jeff Elbel). Both have their own wikipedia articles and these facts are mentioned in the article so that ought to address the claims against notability (see WP:MUSIC criteria for musicians #6). Despite the COI, the content meets the standards for NPOV. As for reliable sources I referenced the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which is reliable and third-party. As for the lack of sources on Google News my search pulled up one article, but you have to be a registered user to read it so I didn't reference it in the article.[1] Finally, WP:MUSIC also recommends allmusic as a reliable source, but there are factual errors concerning FTJ on allmusic so I decided that it would be better to omit this inaccurate information than to include a respected source. - Arfp (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are not discounted. Conflict of interest is not grounds for deletion, either. People base their opinions on AfD on the validity of the sources given to establish notability. Of all the sources you have there, I would consider maybe this as reliable, and maybe the encyclopedia. But a notable band never has problem establishing notability, so I would want to see many more of those as sources. As for allmusic, frankly I tend to discount the musician profiles there as rather opinionated, although I have no problem with referencing them as a secondary source. And finally, notability is not inherited, at least not in most cases. The two former members of the band that you cite as supporting references are themselves not notable enough to carry the band's profile, at least in my opinion. That said, I never have a problem reversing myself on an AfD, so if you do come up with additional valid, reliable sources, do cite them in the article. As of now I'm not convinced this band is even particularly notable within their musical niche, sorry. §FreeRangeFrog 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks freerangefrog for addressing the issues I raised. I recognize that notability is in the eye of the beholder. Among people I know who listen to this type of music, FTJ may not be famous, but they are well-known or "notable" if you will. I have done my best to source that opinion accordingly. I agree that notable bands today generally don't have a problem establishing notability, but do keep in mind that this band has been defunct for more than a decade, and I don't believe that information on notable indie bands was as prevalent in 1998 as it is today. I have found that the Encyclopedia that I referenced is the most comprehensive, accessible, and reliable source about Christian music so whether or not that makes FTJ notable is up for debate, but I don't think that reliability of the source is an issue. I already acknowledged my bias as a fan and perceived lack of credibility as a newbie, so I really feel that cyberghostface's addition of the spa tag was unnecessary and somewhat obvious. I have been a reader of wikipedia for sometime and happened to notice the original FTJ deletion proposal and didn't think that it ought to be deleted so it was in fact the impetus for me to join and edit. I have not, as of yet, edited other articles (other than to give credit to Steve Hindalong for his writing for FTJ) because this is a discussion that is currently going on and ought to be addressed sooner than later. However, I intend to use my knowledge of Christian music to add and edit more pages in the future, for whatever that is worth. - Arfp (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the time whenever there's an AFD of a subject w/COI, there's always a bunch of newly registered SPA accounts popping up to say "Keep". I once witnessed an AFD where the admin kept an article on some movie website based on the number of votes, and he had failed to realize that 90% of the "Keep"s were all newly registered accounts working for the website. So whenever I do an AFD, I always add the "SPA" template if the user is new and has only edited the related article. But I admit to acting in haste in this occasion because I didn't fully read your comment, so I'll remove the tag.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cyberghostface, I didn't mean to jump down your throat. I should have recognized that there are situations like the one you described and that isn't good for WP or anyone who appreciates it. Like I said, I recognize that I am currently an SPA with very little WP editing experience, but I am working on that. I would encourage you to reconsider and take a look at the sources that have been added as well as my points concerning notability above. Obviously notability of individuals doesn't prove notability of a band, but I think it is a good start. I think the debate on FTJ is out in the open now and I have stated my case for them and now it is up to others to decide. I am now working on some additional research, but still adding to FTJ as I find things pertaining to them. - Arfp (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 but only just. While the crossrhythms.co.uk is a reliable source, and non-trivial at that, the only other one I could find was on another Christian music site, with this interview & this review. Christianitytoday.com/music & jesusfreakhideout.com searches bought up little else mind you, as did a general Ghit search. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other Christian music site you reference is well known and respected in Christian music circles. It is an online magazine that also hosts the Cornerstone Festival's Press Tent (COI notice, I have done some work for the Phantom Tollbooth). - Arfp (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - How about merging the info into Brant Hansen and Jeff Elbel? Brant Hansen has no information on him being part of the band, and Jeff Elbel only mentions the discography. FingersOnRoids 01:25, 12 March 2009 (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.