313:. 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?
407:. 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
483:. 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. --
522:
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
479:, 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
193:) 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
462:
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
545:
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. --
166:
518:
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
234:
hardly constitutes a reliable source, as it's content written by random users. As for your Google search, I see MySpace pages, I see
Youtube videos, and I see non reliable sources.
492:
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.
194:
123:
411:
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
467:
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
471:
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
130:
428:
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
90:
85:
94:
265:. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. No significant releases or tours. Just an unsigned band that some people like.
432:. I also found a concert that they played that was sponsored by Cornerstone Festival in conjunction with Gyroscope Arts and HM Magazine.
429:
425:
77:
17:
475:. Your third link shows that they were scheduled to be performing at a non-notable concert back in April; per criterion 4 of
433:
424:
The Trust
Project has placed in the top 10 finalists in "The Christian Music Site's The 2nd Annual Battle of the Bands".
243:
149:
565:
36:
197:. Also, I believe that The Trust Project meets both requirements that (I think) you pointed out with this article
564:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
550:
536:
500:
487:
449:
419:
393:
376:
352:
321:
301:
275:
249:
209:
177:
155:
59:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
293:
458:
I'm sorry, but MySpace isn't a reliable source, 2nd annual or no. For your first link, the requirement at
81:
445:
364:
which I added. If no one has any further comments, a closing admin may consider my comments above as
205:
515:
464:
231:
198:
73:
65:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
476:
472:
459:
404:
262:
219:
133:
519:
441:
201:
173:
480:
412:
223:
532:
493:
386:
369:
314:
310:
227:
137:
547:
484:
416:
361:
269:
49:
111:
514:- No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I will note that the
236:
187:
142:
524:
437:
337:
528:
331:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
285:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
403:. It's very fringe sources here, but I think the article in general fails
527:, the review was submitted by none other than "Ginny McCabe". --
558:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
523:
if one looks at the other review under consideration from
415:-- neither of these references make the band notable. --
167:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
118:
107:
103:
99:
336:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
290:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
568:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
385:as per the additional investigations below.
309:It seems somewhat on the borderline of our
161:
165:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
360:In particular I am wondering about
24:
516:review in journalechretien.net
381:Changed from "weak delete" to
1:
138:general notability guideline
440:of "Breaking the Silence".
585:
322:03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
302:18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
276:10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
250:17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
210:19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
178:16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
156:15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
561:Please do not modify it.
551:15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
537:12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
501:03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
488:19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
450:12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
420:06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
394:15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
377:05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
353:23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
60:19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
218:I must insist you read
311:notability guidelines
436:Oh, and here is a
44:The result was
499:
392:
375:
355:
320:
304:
180:
170:
74:The Trust Project
66:The Trust Project
576:
563:
498:
496:
391:
389:
374:
372:
350:
335:
333:
319:
317:
296:
289:
287:
274:
246:
239:
190:
176:
171:
152:
145:
121:
115:
97:
34:
584:
583:
579:
578:
577:
575:
574:
573:
572:
566:deletion review
559:
494:
387:
370:
338:
329:
315:
294:
283:
266:
248:
244:
237:
188:
172:
154:
150:
143:
117:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
582:
580:
571:
570:
555:
554:
553:
540:
539:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
453:
452:
422:
398:
397:
396:
357:
356:
334:
326:
325:
324:
306:
305:
288:
280:
279:
278:
255:
254:
253:
252:
242:
213:
212:
185:I'd like you (
182:
181:
148:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
581:
569:
567:
562:
556:
552:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:almenconi.com
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
502:
497:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
395:
390:
384:
380:
379:
378:
373:
367:
363:
359:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
332:
328:
327:
323:
318:
312:
308:
307:
303:
300:
299:
297:
286:
282:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
264:
260:
257:
256:
251:
247:
241:
240:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
207:
203:
200:
196:
192:
191:
184:
183:
179:
175:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
153:
147:
146:
139:
136:and also the
135:
132:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
560:
557:
511:
468:
408:
400:
382:
365:
347:
343:
339:
330:
292:
291:
284:
268:
267:
258:
235:
186:
162:
141:
129:
55:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
366:weak delete
362:this source
442:Mattman243
202:Mattman243
174:KuyaBriBri
495:Paul Erik
388:Paul Erik
371:Paul Erik
316:Paul Erik
261:: Fails
124:View log
548:Nomader
485:Nomader
477:WP:BAND
473:WP:BAND
460:WP:BAND
417:Nomader
405:WP:BAND
270:Mr_pand
263:WP:BAND
220:WP:BAND
134:WP:BAND
91:protect
86:history
512:Delete
438:review
401:Delete
383:delete
259:Delete
238:Aditya
226:, and
189:Aditya
144:Aditya
119:delete
95:delete
46:delete
481:WP:RS
469:after
413:WP:RS
224:WP:RS
131:Fails
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
533:talk
529:Whpq
520:here
465:here
446:talk
434:LINK
430:HERE
426:LINK
232:This
228:WP:N
206:talk
199:HERE
195:THIS
163:Note
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
51:Sher
409:did
56:eth
535:)
448:)
368:.
230:.
222:,
208:)
169:.
140:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
48:.
531:(
444:(
348:a
346:c
344:z
342:a
340:m
298:'
295:I
245:ß
204:(
151:ß
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.