Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Engineers

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 of the debate was no consensus. — FireFox 11:16, 28 May '06

[edit] Future Engineers

nothing on a major label; virtually all Google hits are for school projects, not for the band --M@rēino 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I was able to verify at least a sizable chunk of the discograpy [1]. Given the size of it, I'm hesitant to say we should delete just because they're not on major labels. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC; doing a directed Google search (using the name of one of the members to eliminate the FEA high school types) I get only thirteen unique hits [2], and the lead hit is that classic Kiss of Non-Notable Death, this Wikipedia article. Their soi-disant record label is purportedly in receivership, their website is down (and that label itself fails WP:MUSIC - "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)"), and Amazon has no sales information on any of their albums. RGTraynor 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the fact that their principle label is now in financial trouble invalidates neither the releases not the band!!! Rough Trade Records was bust at one point too. I think this [3] and this [4] proves that this was a large independent which lasted a decent length of time and had a large roster of which the present subjects were part. The only thing against them is the lack of an obvious album length release but as that's normal in this genre, it would be wrong to exclude on that basis. Ac@osr 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Future Engineers have a cult following, have numerous releases on a major drum and bass label, Good Looking Records, further released via Sony. Good Looking Records is not in financial difficulty and this can be verified by searches for Good Looking Holdings. User: no login 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This edit was by 88.106.3.205 --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Talk about shooting yourself in the foot; to delete this entry is a travesty: using the fact that their website is down and record labels are in receivership, as means to nail down the coffin lid! This fact should promote sympathy that these musical geniuses are in financial difficulty! These guys are sadly under-represented; lets do what we can to lift their battered spirits & at least keep the Wikipedia article going to help inform others!
  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.220.47 (talk • contribs) .

• A Google search for "Good Looking Holdings" yields four hits, three of which are government websites. A Google search for "Looking Good Holdings" yields nada. Furthermore, of the two websites linked to from the discogs entry, one is down, and the other is "coming soon". Of a Google search for Google search for "Future Engineers", as RGTraynor has already mentioned, the top site linking in that has anything to do with the band is Wikipedia. And since a Wikipedia article is not a consolation, nor a substitute, for one's website being down, delete without sympathy. TheProject 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral They appear on: LTJ Bukem - Progression Sessions, Vol. 6 and Michael Dog - Summer Night Sessions. Both of which can be purchased on line. As well as some other notable mixed CDs. They seem to be minor players in a notable music scene on a notable although small independent label. I disagree with a major label record contract being necessary for inclusion. I can't decide on this one. --Nick Y. 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)--17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This band is notable enough to have a wikipedia page base on their following. Amazinglarry 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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.