Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trust Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Shereth 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Trust Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails WP:BAND and also the general notability guideline. Aditya α ß 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like you (Aditya) to elaborate on your reasoning for deletion please. The name "Trust Project" is used for some organizations other than this band, so of course Google won't turn up much if you just search "The Trust Project". Try THIS. Also, I believe that The Trust Project meets both requirements that (I think) you pointed out with this article HERE Mattman243 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BAND. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. No significant releases or tours. Just an unsigned band that some people like. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems somewhat on the borderline of our notability guidelines. There are three (possibly? likely?) independent sources currently in the reference list, including one I added just now, but these are not recognizable mainstream media sources, and it is difficult to know if some of these webzines will write about just any Christian music act that emails publicity material to them. Newreleasetuesday.com is certainly dubious with regard to reliability if any user can edit the entry. Does anyone have some familiarity with the other music webzines? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular I am wondering about this source which I added. If no one has any further comments, a closing admin may consider my comments above as
weak delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Changed from "weak delete" to delete as per the additional investigations below. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's very fringe sources here, but I think the article in general fails WP:BAND. I read through the references. The Journal Chretien article kind of felt half like an ad for the band, not a review or a story about the band. The beginning of the article tells the reader where they can find their Myspace page, and talks in detail about ticket information, while the end notes where you can find more information at their Myspace page and their website. The other article that I looked at thoroughly was the "Artist Spotlight" reference, which did seem a bit more reputable (it actually criticizes the band in the article). I'm just not sure if either reference can make the article meet notability on its own, per WP:RS -- neither of these references make the band notable. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Trust Project has placed in the top 10 finalists in "The Christian Music Site's The 2nd Annual Battle of the Bands". LINK Sure, it's myspace, but the 2nd Annual part caught my attention. Is this reputable? On that same site, I found another review/write-up of the band HERE. I also found a concert that they played that was sponsored by Cornerstone Festival in conjunction with Gyroscope Arts and HM Magazine. LINK Oh, and here is a review of "Breaking the Silence". Mattman243 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but MySpace isn't a reliable source, 2nd annual or no. For your first link, the requirement at WP:BAND lists: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." A MySpace Christian music competition just isn't major enough to denote notability. For your second link, it is copied directly from parts of this link here which you brought up earlier -- that site was deemed unreliable because it was made from User-made content. The second link you just provided was actually written after the user-made one, so it's most likely a self-promoting piece made by the band and distributed to these various outlets, which fails criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Your third link shows that they were scheduled to be performing at a non-notable concert back in April; per criterion 4 of WP:BAND, it would've had to have been a national tour or an international tour, and the coverage would have to be the focus of an article, not just a name in a list for a concert. Your last link is the only one that has any sort of standing. I checked out the website, which seems to be very fringe for WP:RS. I hate to say this though, but... I don't think either of the fringe reviews you and Paul have provided are notable enough for the band to have its own article. However this is very up in the air, and I encourage other editors to take a second look at the analysis I've just made. For now though, I have to keep my delete vote from prior. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the reasons outlined by Nomader, and because I was unable to find any other sources despite spending some time searching, I am going to stick with my "delete" recommendation. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but MySpace isn't a reliable source, 2nd annual or no. For your first link, the requirement at WP:BAND lists: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." A MySpace Christian music competition just isn't major enough to denote notability. For your second link, it is copied directly from parts of this link here which you brought up earlier -- that site was deemed unreliable because it was made from User-made content. The second link you just provided was actually written after the user-made one, so it's most likely a self-promoting piece made by the band and distributed to these various outlets, which fails criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Your third link shows that they were scheduled to be performing at a non-notable concert back in April; per criterion 4 of WP:BAND, it would've had to have been a national tour or an international tour, and the coverage would have to be the focus of an article, not just a name in a list for a concert. Your last link is the only one that has any sort of standing. I checked out the website, which seems to be very fringe for WP:RS. I hate to say this though, but... I don't think either of the fringe reviews you and Paul have provided are notable enough for the band to have its own article. However this is very up in the air, and I encourage other editors to take a second look at the analysis I've just made. For now though, I have to keep my delete vote from prior. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I will note that the review in journalechretien.net which was being looked at as a possible source is really the efforts of a PR person/firm. You will note that this is a "special" from Ginny McCabe. The same material can be found here and is prefaced with "For Immediate Release" which is the hallmark of a press release. Note also that the material there ends with "For more information, to request a review copy, or to set up an interview with one of the band’s members, contact McCabe Media (www.myspace.com/mccabemedia) ..." And if one looks at the other review under consideration from almenconi.com, the review was submitted by none other than "Ginny McCabe". -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had noticed Ginny McCabe on one of the reviews,, but I hadn't made any connection with "McCabe media" at the reviews. It still doesn't change my vote, but it does put me into a much stronger delete. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:59, 7 July 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.