Jump to content

Talk:Eleventyseven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This article was restored by user:Xoloz on 14 Sept 07 following a successfull DRV Spartaz Humbug! 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work

[edit]

Just popping in, and I noticed that this article has been nominated for deletion a couple of times. Just thought I might add that the article needs more information. They are notable enough, not sure why it has been targeted for deletion (MTVU exposure is good enough to an extent for one thing). Anyways, I've added/changed just a few small things, but if I can get some help, that would be much appreciated. Also, just to note, they've gathered over 331,000+ plays on PureVolume.com, which isn't that bad by PureVolume standards (though not notable enough for Wikipedia). Keep a lookout. Oh, and by the way, a picture wouldn't be bad either. IronCrow 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fight pretty hard to get this restored; it had been A7'ed a ton of times and then salted, and DRV was a gauntlet. But I don't think the article will ever be challenged again with the current references. Chubbles 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how any band with cited chart success can be even considered for deletion, much less have been deleted. I've run into too many deletions like this. Their genre shouldn't be considered. Contributors are ignoring WP:BAND. Which WikiProject should claim this band, WP:CCM or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Metal? Royalbroil 12:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's happening is, the article is being written over and over by teenagers who don't understand the RS policy, and then it's getting speedily deleted or AfD'ed. Then it gets salted. I went to DRV to get it unsalted, and they said that since the article had such a history of being deleted, they wanted a damn good draft writeup before they would consider unsalting it. So I went and cooked up a draft with a raft of sources, and they agreed to restore. The citations weren't there before the deletions. By the way, if you're aware of any articles that are being deleted despite charting, give me some names; I'll have them restored. Chart success is the iron law of notability. Oh, and I guess CCM would be the relevant WP; whoever usually handles pop punk. Chubbles 15:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been getting them restored and up to speed myself. Nevertheless (band) was easily notable with documented chart action when it was speedy deleted [1]. Royalbroil 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have other examples, but I want to stop bogging down this discussion any more. Let's take this in a different direction. One of the contributors who commented on one of the AFD discussions basically said that Billboard magazine is the only test of notability in the U.S. I strongly disagree with this comment. Let's make up a list of charts which can demonstrate notability. I started a thread that has not been commented on here. Let's all put our heads together and come up with a list of notable radio networks, charts, etc. from the Wikipedians that understand Christian music the most. Then we can use this list in AFD discussions. Royalbroil 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me in the direction of that comment? It's a patent absurdity, and if that AfD is still open I'd like to comment on it. For Christian artists, Billboard has album charts and single charts but I'm not sure if the singles charts are available online. But the paper issues publish the top 20. Radio and Records publishes a Christian chart online but I don't think they archive it, which is unfortunate; also, it's harder to find libraries that have back issues of R&R. There's also 20 the Countdown Magazine, which doesn't appear to have an archive either. Chubbles 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the third comment down here in the July 24th AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleventyseven (2nd nomination), and more or less seconded by the sixth comment. I find that sixth comment very disturbing, and I strongly disagree with almost the entire comment. PLEASE, let's move this discussion to a more visible place, specifically the link above. It is very important that this gets discussed so we have a consensus formed for future AFDs. Royalbroil 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean on the WP:CCM page? I'm fine with discussing things but Wikiprojects, I've found, are notoriously unhelpful with fixing problems when I ask. I get much more out of asking individual users. WP:CCM has a requested articles list somewhere, which I discovered maybe a month ago and then went and wrote literally half the articles that had been listed there. Chubbles 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's please discuss at WP:CCM. Two reasons: 1) It's more visible, so it's more likely that interested contributors would run across the conversation and 2) Who's going to remember to go to the talk page of Eleventyseven to find this discussion? You could start a new discussion if you prefer. Royalbroil 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colons are killing me...But yeah, it should be continued there, As for this band (not others in the CCM industry) another way to assert notability from WP:BAND is: 4.Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). IronCrow (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Length Self Produced Album And EP's

[edit]

Hey, does anyone know anything about that? I have both their FR Cd's. Are those albums that were self-produced just songs that they just re-recorded for their other ones? Does anyone know if you can get those Cd's still? Or is that just some jerk coming in and messing up the article?

Christian band?

[edit]

An anonymous contributor who apparently later has registered with an account naming themselves as management has been repeatedly removing that they're a Christian band. There is plenty of reliable sources citing their chart runs. While the article can be written in a way to say that they're mainstream now and not Christian, you can't rewrite history to remove that genre from their musical styles. I have restored it. Please discuss your reasoning below. If it is changed back without discussion, then the article it will be undone. Since this is the third time, it will then be administratively locked from editing so that this disruptive vandalism won't continue. We'd like to work with you not against. Royalbroil 03:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Sugarfist

[edit]

There should be an article for Sugarfist, their fourth studio album. I cannot create one because I do not have a wikipedia account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.239.116 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to create it now, but there just isn't a lot of info out there about it yet. We need to wait until it gets some more media attention.--¿3family6 contribs 13:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarfist 75.170.51.138 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side-projects

[edit]

Why was a piece of the side project Best Friend Fight removed? They have released three songs and they had sources to back them.RhettGedies (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhettGeddies. Do you know how to use the history feature? I just checked and it looks like I was the one who removed that information and I did it here. I made an edit summary too:
punctuation only goes inside a quote if it was originally there. (MoS). Cleaning section. iTunes isn't a good source and it's deadlink now anyhow. + remove unreferenced material
I just added the emphasis here, but the link to the one song released on iTunes is a dead link, and it's not a reliable source. It's technically advertising. If an unrelated source, and one that was reliable, had written about it, we could use that. You might find a good set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, but you can also use Google and check to see if your source is listed there as well. The iTunes source may have met verifiablity, but that's a low threshold.
The question isn't really whether they have released material, but whether their material is important enough to write about in an encyclopedia or if it's just only important to a small group of fans. There are thousands of individual tracks in iTunes, Amazon.com and other sales channels and the creators of that music aren't notable and the songs will probably never achieve notability either. We don't want this article to become a place to hang material about this duo. If it's marginally important, we should. If they suddenly become notable, we would certainly split the current material out and start a new article. At this point, we're probably discussing too much about them in the article as it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, what I stuggle with in the situation of something like Best Friend Fight is, that since the duo will almost likely NEVER get their own article. Why not just add the extra sentence and inform the public on everything there is to know about them? Besides "Walking Dead Apocalypse," the songs "Fancy" and "Time Machine" have been posted on YouTube. So they do exist. Why hide it? Just because one more sentence is too much?

Slight addition: I did not know that the iTunes link went dead. It was working as of a few months ago. Apologies.RhettGedies (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response and the reminder on my talk page.
We only discuss material on Wikipedia that has support from reliable sources. Just because they have released YouTube videos doesn't make them notable. That they have been reported on by notable subjects does. Mentioning the side projects is probably as far as we should go. Mentioning individual works is probably out-of-bounds. Have you looked at whether RSes listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources discuss the works? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyrox

[edit]

Since the original Jellyrox page was deleted back in 2013 due to notability-related issues, I am going to make a section here to compile data until it is proven enough for the page's eventual rebirth (hopefully).

The Jellyrox is appearing at Moogfest this year. Here

RhettGedies (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disbandment and article work/embellishing

[edit]

As Eleventyseven has disbanded as of September 26, 2014, I am beginning a final embellishing/fattening of the their articles with relevant information, lyric booklet personnel/info, as well as finally forming the final EP article missing for them.

I also own every Japan edition of all four of their albums and have access to information of that nature (as well as all but one of their EPs in physical copy).

It's been awesome being an Eleventy fan for the past few years and collecting virtually everything they have released and I hope by polishing these articles to a point they can fittingly preserve what they were for all-time.

This is just to say I will probably be doing big additions, constant little tweakings, and almost pointless edits to make sure everything is "picturesque" in the end.

RhettGedies (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eleventyseven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eleventyseven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eleventyseven&oldid=1196715199"