Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelicals (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) SSTflyer 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicals (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This band passes GNG and BAND, where they have a biography at AllMusic, with two reviews So Gone and The Evening Descends, and thirteen other reviews of their album at Metacritic, giving them a Metascore of 70 for the second album.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I don't agree with Walter a whole lot, I've a comment and a question. First off, both those reviews you cite are from Allmusic, and the GNG requires that the subject receive significant coverage from multiple sources (if you believe, which I don't, that the Allmusic biography constitutes "significant" coverage). My question is this: I fancy myself familiar with WP:BAND, and have participated in dozens if not hundreds of band AfDs, and I'm missing where a Metacritic score forms any part of notability criteria; could you point that out? Ravenswing 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Yes, I would be happy to explain to you why Metacritic shows GNG, for their latest album was reviewed by 14 publications, which are held in high regard that they used them to calculate a score for their music. The publications used were seven music magazines with tremendous amount of editorial oversight Uncut, Magnet, Spin, Mojo, Under the Radar, Lost at Sea, and Prefix Magazine, while also getting reviews in highly esteemed websites PopMatters, Pitchfork, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Drowned in Sound, where they got one newspaper review at The Austin Chronicle. These publications are independent of the subject to confer notability to the group. The BAND criteria are met by No. 1, for the reviews alone, also No. 5 because they released two albums with notable labels, Dead Oceans and Misra. About their first album, Pitchfork, Prefix Magazine, Slant Magazine, and Delusions of Adequacy reviewed the album, along with AllMusic above. I would have to say BAND/MUSICBIO is subservient to the superior GNG guidelines, where GNG was achieved with this band in mind.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable given the coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seems to be enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 May 2016 (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.