Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XLooking Forwardx

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 all. As many may know, I'm one for stretching the boundaries of WP:MUSIC, but I can't be persuaded that either of these record labels are "one of the more important independent labels" per WP:MUSIC. Indeed, some of the bands on those labels that do have articles look equally likely to fail the policy as well. Black Kite 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLooking Forwardx

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links. Stormie (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these two album articles of theres, both are unsourced and are basically tracklist + infobox + nothing else.

Keep one release on the important Facedown Records and two on the rather well-known indie Blood and Ink Records tips the hat for me. Chubbles (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Releases on Facedown Records and Blood and Ink Records make me say keep. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 22:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (band is on Facedown Records, an extremely influential Christian hardcore label). Band has multiple albums and has probably toured across the United States multiple times. Nom'er has a point about the external links though; I'll remove the myspace and purevolume links right now. ~EdGl (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to remove those links; they're legitimate external links to have on a page about a band... Chubbles (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there Chubbles - although I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this band is notable, nor that Facedown Records or Blood and Ink Records are notable (both those articles are promo pieces with absolutely zero sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:NOTE), if the consensus is that this is a notable band after all, then yes, their MySpace page should absolutely be linked from the article. Be nice if someone would actually take the time to provide evidence of notability, though, rather than just asserting it. --Stormie (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, readded the links, and also added a reference to the article ~EdGl (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC at this point, even if they are on a well-known label. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My contention was that it does, in fact, pass WP:MUSIC based on the label claims. Facedown's one of the most important labels in the genre (notwithstanding Stormie's doubts), and Blood and Ink (regardless of whether it has an article or not) satisfies the definition of "one of the more important independent labels" given in WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be flogging a dead horse here, but it would really make things a lot simpler if someone could provide some evidence of the importance of Facedown Records and Blood and Ink Records. If they're two of "the more important independent labels" why is the best sourcing we can come up with a link to the labels' homepages and couple of interviews from a fanzine and some guy's blog respectively? --Stormie (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Facedown's roster speaks for itself; the key rub in debates over the importance of record labels boils down to people who adhere strictly to WP:CORP, which I think is a poor straitjacket for the labels, and those who recognize that labels become well-known primarily through the acts they sign. Facedown artists are routinely reviewed in dozens of major press outlets. Chubbles (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criterion in WP:MUSIC reads "...released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels..." which is hard to read as met if the article for Blood and Ink Records is itself tagged with notability concerns. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC for the time being. It is debatable if Facedown Records is a major label (the articles in Wikipedia do not demonstrate this with reliable, independent sources); based on this, Blood and Ink Records has the same problems in establishing notability. Regarding Chubbles' comments above, it's not the label's press releases that establish its notability and it's not its roster of talent: it's the coverage by media outlets not associated (directly or indirectly) with the labels (see Word Records and Myrrh Records). The articles of the record labels mentioned here make no so mention; because of that (and lack of such coverage of XLooking Forwardsx in this article) the article should not exist until/unless such evidence is included.B.Wind (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (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.