Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Up (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SEE BELOW THE BLUE BOX RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Relisting (see previous discussion below where consensus was to delete). Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 04:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Err, so, why is this being relisted? If it is recreated deleted content, it can be speedied. Me confused. android↔talk 04:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It has been. The article was listed on VfU and then undeleted, and the VfU for it deleted after having been there for only one day. I have redeleted it and restored the VfU listing until the appropriate five day VfU voting period has expired. This VfD should not be here until the VfU period has passed. Invalid VfD listing. RickK 04:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- This article has been deleted twice and recreated twice. So far I cannot find anything in the speedy deletion policy which states why this can be recreated even though the author is claiming ignorance of the original vote and that they are not the same person as the first article author, although the article is dicussing the same band. I was unaware someone had removed the VfU entry after only one day. JamesBurns 05:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for the old and new content. This is in no way a recreation of deleted content. --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The only major difference between this article and the first is that the author has bothered to write their names in full rather than their first names. The grounds for deletion was on notability - it had nothing to do with how badly written the first article was. JamesBurns 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please, go to the link I provided above. There's a whole new first paragraph about the band. This isn't really the place for you to argue bullshit anyway, as it's inactive. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You really need to change your tone of language SPUI. For an admin you are setting a poor example for people reading wikipedia. JamesBurns 04:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Er? I'm not an admin. I wouldn't want to be an admin. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank God. RickK66.60.159.190 19:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Er? I'm not an admin. I wouldn't want to be an admin. --SPUI (talk) 07:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You really need to change your tone of language SPUI. For an admin you are setting a poor example for people reading wikipedia. JamesBurns 04:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please, go to the link I provided above. There's a whole new first paragraph about the band. This isn't really the place for you to argue bullshit anyway, as it's inactive. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The only major difference between this article and the first is that the author has bothered to write their names in full rather than their first names. The grounds for deletion was on notability - it had nothing to do with how badly written the first article was. JamesBurns 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for the old and new content. This is in no way a recreation of deleted content. --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This article has been deleted twice and recreated twice. So far I cannot find anything in the speedy deletion policy which states why this can be recreated even though the author is claiming ignorance of the original vote and that they are not the same person as the first article author, although the article is dicussing the same band. I was unaware someone had removed the VfU entry after only one day. JamesBurns 05:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It has been. The article was listed on VfU and then undeleted, and the VfU for it deleted after having been there for only one day. I have redeleted it and restored the VfU listing until the appropriate five day VfU voting period has expired. This VfD should not be here until the VfU period has passed. Invalid VfD listing. RickK 04:30, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Article fails to establish notability. Band's only album is an independent release. JamesBurns 08:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep if their album was released by a third party, not themselves - David Gerard 09:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not established. And, come on, hotlinking the band members' first names? Radiant_* 13:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 14:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
OK, here we go again. Despite the unanimous delete votes from the previous VfD, this article was listed on VfU, and after a contentious vote, there was a slight majority to Undelete. As per proper VfU procedure, the article should have been re-listed on VfD, but that was not done, so I have now done so. This band is not notable. Delete. RickK 22:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. BEC Recordings is owned by the same guy who runs Tooth & Nail Records (the BEC article is going on my to-do list now). They're both pretty important labels, serving as an important "incubator" for bands like The O.C. Supertones, MxPx, Project 86, and Zao, which have all gone on to be major members of their respective music scenes (T&N also released an EP by P.O.D.). If a band joins one of these labels, they do tour on a national scale, and they do get a strong fan base in the Christian circles, beyond what they'd get as a local band or as an internet-only band. A Google query for the band name now results in over 68,000 hits, and "falling up" crashings gets about 5000 hits (which is pretty good for a Christian rock album; it out-Googles several recent albums by the Newsboys, which were atop the Christian charts for a while, for example: [1] [2] [3]). --Idont Havaname 02:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sorry but this band still isnt that notable. BEC Recordings is not Epic or Warners - its a specialist label for mostly Christian bands many of them very obscure. A fair slice of those Google hits are by fans leaving messages on blogs about the band. As has been pointed out on vfd before, the Google Test is not a good indicator of notability for music or pornography. Their "national" tour seems to be mostly confined to churchs, religious festivals and small stadiums. JamesBurns 04:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but... if every band that is on this site has to have a page full of #1 hits and several national tours in which they sold out every NFL stadium, should we delete all the others (including those who started some of the more obscure musical genres)? That's a strict criterion; Christian rock basically is on the fringes of mainstream rock, so its bands don't sell a lot of records and are mainly stuck in the church culture. Pretty much any Christian artist that isn't Third Day doesn't crank out #1 hits in the general market or sell out a very large stadium in every show. (Also just a side note: several Christian festivals - see Cornerstone Festival for one of the examples - draw tens of thousands of guests.) Falling Up is also featured on X 2005, a compilation of Christian rock hits from 17 bands, most of which have articles on this site that have been accepted without question. If you'd like to go through and delete all of those bands too, go ahead and do it. But keep things standard across the site. --Idont Havaname 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I never mentioned #1 hits. Should we make exceptions to Christian bands just because they wish to be identified in that genre? I dont think so. Notability should be across the board, not just one particular market. JamesBurns 08:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but... if every band that is on this site has to have a page full of #1 hits and several national tours in which they sold out every NFL stadium, should we delete all the others (including those who started some of the more obscure musical genres)? That's a strict criterion; Christian rock basically is on the fringes of mainstream rock, so its bands don't sell a lot of records and are mainly stuck in the church culture. Pretty much any Christian artist that isn't Third Day doesn't crank out #1 hits in the general market or sell out a very large stadium in every show. (Also just a side note: several Christian festivals - see Cornerstone Festival for one of the examples - draw tens of thousands of guests.) Falling Up is also featured on X 2005, a compilation of Christian rock hits from 17 bands, most of which have articles on this site that have been accepted without question. If you'd like to go through and delete all of those bands too, go ahead and do it. But keep things standard across the site. --Idont Havaname 05:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Idont Havaname did a nice job with a recent update on the article, and it now makes a good case for the band's notability. If the article had always been that good, it probably wouldn't have been up for VfD. Quale 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A decent article, and what else is going to use this title? Wikipedia is not improved by deleting this. --L33tminion (talk) 05:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Hasn't changed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Any band whose article was created by one person, deleted, and then created by a second person who was completely unaware of the first article must be known by enough different people to be famous enough for Wikipedia. (By the way, I have heard of the band too.) Wiwaxia 07:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know they were completely unaware? We're only taking Cookiemobsta's word for it. Another editor quizzed Cookiemobsta whether they were User:EskimoJoe, EskimoJoe has subsequently "disappeared" and Cookiemobsta has gone silent. Megan1967 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, whatever happens to this article User:Cookiemobsta deserves some WikiLove for creating a band article that doesn't have redlinks for every effin' member, album and song. Soundguy99 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They are notable in the Christian Rock genre. Arguements for Delete all seem to be very weak indeed. Robinoke 08:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Their Allmusic guide entry notes that their 2004 album Crashings made the Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts. [4] As a result, they are notable within genre. They have also toured extensively meeting the Wikimusic Project guidelines.
Capitalistroadster 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just isnt notable enough. Megan1967 12:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 12:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Capitalistroadster. Shimmin 13:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. --iMb~Meow 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Never should've been deleted in the first place. Grue 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And another keep per Capitalistroadster. Samaritan 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Capitalroadster's argument seems reasonable enough. I wonder if the members of Falling Up know about all the trouble this article has created... Sjakkalle 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, If an article like this gets kept it will set a bad precedent - any band can put together an independent album and claim notability. Leanne 08:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an album might be easy, but charting is harder. Kappa 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends. The Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts aren't based on many tens of thousands of unit sales a week like the rock and pop charts. Making #1 on those charts would still be a little bit notable. Merely showing up on the genre charts (Top Ten albums of the year? Top 100 albums of the week?) is not notable by itself. How meaningfully they "charted" isn't shown in these comments. Having one release on BEC Recordings doesn't make a band notable; they have to do that themselves. I'm not convinced one way or the other by this discussion. No vote. Barno 14:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the South Park episode when they parodied Christian music sales? "Christian Rock Hard". JamesBurns 05:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep comments relevant to this discussion. --Idont Havaname 03:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the South Park episode when they parodied Christian music sales? "Christian Rock Hard". JamesBurns 05:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends. The Billboard Christian Rock and Heatseekers charts aren't based on many tens of thousands of unit sales a week like the rock and pop charts. Making #1 on those charts would still be a little bit notable. Merely showing up on the genre charts (Top Ten albums of the year? Top 100 albums of the week?) is not notable by itself. How meaningfully they "charted" isn't shown in these comments. Having one release on BEC Recordings doesn't make a band notable; they have to do that themselves. I'm not convinced one way or the other by this discussion. No vote. Barno 14:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an album might be easy, but charting is harder. Kappa 08:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apologies for going silent; my access to the wikipedia is limited (I'm only getting on at the school library) but I'm still here. You also might be able to check IPs or something if you want evidence that I'm different from the first guy to make the article... Also, as far as notability goes; with Falling Up's Crashings being ranked as 9,427 in music sales. Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again" album is ranked at #9,591 in music sales. Granted, if you added up all of Britney's albums she'd certainly outperform Falling Up, and this is only a statistic on amazon.com, but for them to outsell one of Britney's albums probably means that they're notable enough for listing on the wikipedia. (And the article Falling Up is about an album by Digby. On amazon.com's music rankings, Digby's album is ranked 96,371 in sales. It seems like Falling Up the band might be more notable than Digby's album, yet Digby's album has no controversy about it). -Cookiemobsta
- Controversial to wikipedia, but not notable elsewhere - lets not get carried away with self importance here. Push comes to shove the general public doesnt give a rats behind about whats being said in this thread. JamesBurns 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I've turned the main Falling Up article into a disambig in order to reflect this and in order to eliminate redundancy with the article on the Digby album. By the way, I added more information to the article about the band. Turns out they've broken a sales record set by Kutless. --Idont Havaname 23:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, still not notable no matter how much is added to the article. Iam 03:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a big fan of Christian Rock, I can tell you this band has gotten heavy play on christian radio stations in the last year (as a side note, they're much better than a lot of recent bland bands like Kutless) Kertrats 00:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.