Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Forestry
- 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. Essjay (Talk) 09:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future of Forestry[edit]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod, a claim of notability has been made on on my talk page. MER-C 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Future of Forestry (FoF) meets the following four requirements for notability (though admittedly the page should be updated with these references) which according to WP:MUSIC, a band "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"
- "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." FoF was reviewed on DrivenFarOff.com, a music review site with a staff of nearly 20 people, as well as Infuze magazine, an online magazine on art & faith with a staff of more than 20 people, and Melodic.net
- "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" FoF has performed in several states and has upcoming tour dates in Oregon, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Florida
- "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" FoF has an EP with Credential Recordings (indie) and is on a compilation by EMI (very major)
- "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" FoF is the most notable Christian band in San Diego, playing in front of approx. 2,000 people at Flood Church weekly
Nothingcorporate 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would seem to establish notability. Nothingcorporate, you mentioned on MER-C's talk that you had references, etc. If you could supply those, that would probably establish notability for sure.--Kchase T 08:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- References
X2007 Compilation by EMI on ChristianityToday.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nothingcorporate (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Article failes to satisfy the notability guidelines WP:MUSIC, Kearny High School, blogs, myspace.com, amazon.com and subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Article does not even assert the notability of the topic. If this was CSD it would fail WP:CSD#A7 & WP:CSD#G11 Hu12 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looks like it passes WP:MUSIC. To Hu12, reviews by publications are going to be subjective. The reviewer, whether it's someone in Rolling Stone magazine or in one of the reviews mentioned above, is going to voice their opinion on the band and its music. Mutliple, non-trivial reviews passes WP:MUSIC. A tour schedule on the band's website is relevant. The amazon.com info is relevant for record releases. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The presence of reviews from independent sources mean it passes WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article meets the criteria for numbers 1, 4, 5, and 7 of WP:MUSIC - Matthew Hambrick 22:02, 16 December 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.