Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focal Point (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. MBisanz talk 01:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focal Point (band)

[edit]
Focal Point (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PRODed, non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. One notable subject who later played in two notable bands. They released two albums, neither of which seem to have met notability guidelines either. T&N is not a major label either. In the period, 1995–97, it was a small label. It did not reach prominence for another few years. The entry in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music is a short paragraph. Not enough to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Ok, so explain to us why you didn't consider merging to the article on the band's notable member (a couple of lines and a mention of the album releases would probably suffice)? If the encylopedia entry is available online, could you link to it so that we can make up our own minds? --Michig (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to our brief exchange on your talk page prior to this AfD, I still fail to see where it fails WP:MUSICBIO. #5 makes no mention requiring an albums notability, nor allowing for ignoring works simply because they happened early in a label's history, nor that EPs don't count as albums. I would also like to read the entry for myself. I'm also not opposed to a merge to Ryan Clark's page if the consensus is that the entry as a whole fails. GreenRunner0 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They released one album and one EP. Neither were themselves notable. The fact that they were on Tooth & Nail doesn't mean that they ear a bye onto Wikipedia. In th1 late 90s T&N was a small label. It was not until they signed a distribution deal with EMI CMG that they became big. I'm not opposed to merging all of the referenced content, but there is none, so what's to merge? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The verifiable/sourceable content. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, those are the facts but I'm saying the notability of the albums themselves is a non-point and the notability guidelines says nothing of taking the reputation of the label at the time into account. GreenRunner0 22:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can add it, but the key is that the music guidelines presume that GNG is met by the criteria. The criteria are not stand-alone "hall passes" that permit any article to stay if those criteria are met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see that the meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. True, they did have some release on a label that later became more significant, but at the time they were just a small indie label. I don't think that's compelling enough for us to throw the usual rules out the window, sadly. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:25, 20 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Focal_Point_(band)&oldid=1136670856"