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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously deleted through AfD here. A DRV consensus overturned in light of new evidence, for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 12:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the DRV info. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Still delete per my original nomination and JzG's sterling argument in the deletion review. I have been insulted and denigrated since I joined Wikipedia, with accusations of vandalism and bad-faith editing (and yes, that is a bit of a non sequitur, but it has relevance because much of the discussion has revolved around alleged misconduct on my part, none of which has been proven, or indeed exists other than in the minds of the people complaining). The 'new evidence' in the DRV does not amount to much, and I think that had people not have attacked me from the very beginning, the article would have been deleted more convincingly the first time round. The Crying Orc 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said in the DRV, the editors working on this article need to take this opportunity to get the sources they pointed to into the article to indicate that this was indeed a notable member of the Christian rock genre; the fact that they shared a record label with such names as Amy Grant and Randy Travis is a pretty good start, but that needs to be sourced in the article immediately. If sources are provided, then keep; otherwise, let it go. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The following links verify the content in the article as 441 being notable in the CCM/Christian alternative movement and identified as a part of a group of bands as noted in the DRV. Words used are "pioneering," "beloved," "trendsetting," and verifies the three album releases, chart positions and national distribution. Entry for 441 in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music by Mark Allan Powell. Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. p.337 Review of Broken Records Reunion Concert, CCM Magazine, October, 2005 Story on Broken Concert, Christian Examiner Album review from Contemporary Christian Music magazine, August 1985. 441's Mourning Into Dancing at #2 chart position, Musicline Magazine (The CCM Billboard at the time), Aug. 1986 Gh228 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228 One more - Reunion concert story in Orange County Register, Aug. 14, 2005 Gh228 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]
• Keep Somewhat of a borderline case, but I think the references are enough to support an article on the band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article does need to cite its sources and it could probably use some better sources, but so do plenty of other Wikipedia articles that aren't ever nominated for deletion. --Limetom 10:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are you saying you'd like citation footnotes within the article? I can do that. As you may have seen, I edited the article for better format and included the sources listed above and certainly want to make the item conforming and effective. As for the credibility of the sources, the CCM Enclopedia, CCM Magazine/Musicline, Christian Examiner and The Orange County Register (mainstream newspaper) are authoritative for this genre. "Mainstream" press, as I mentioned in the DRV and seconded by an editor, is sporadic for this genre. I'm working on finding additional sources for the latter album release, but they will be the same sources (CCM magazine, etc.). One issue of notability here is that there are many current acts (Switchfoot, Jars of Clay, P.O.D, Joy Electric and Relient K, to name a several) who got their opportunity/inspiration from the work of bands such as 4-4-1, Undercover, Adam Again, Altar Boys, Lifesavors, Crumbacher, and The Choir. These groups have far exceeded the popularity of the original acts. Seminal groups hold a valued part in any genre, even if they aren't widely known or wildly popular. Gh228 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]
• Keep The sources are presumably legit, despite the fact that the online links are only to 4-4-1's website. Since there weren't many websites in the early 80s, the odds of content originally from that era being on the original publisher's website is essentially zero. It would be better if someone can find the original sources in a library and do a citation to the print sources, leaving the URLs as just convenience links. However, the sources do demonstrate meeting the WP:MUSIC standards. GRBerry 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As you mentioned, online archives for these sources don't exist, AFAIK. I attempted to contact CCM Magazine but their email box is full. The items hosted on the 4-4-1 site were scans that I made of the items I still had as well as contributions from others who still had hard copy archives of these publications. The simplest place to put them for viewing was on that server/domain. The CCM Encyclopedia is a currently an in-print book. The OC Register article is active. This has all certainly been in good faith - with the amount of time I've already spent on this, fabricating references would take many more hours and is not in my nature. Thanks for everyone's time on this, it has earned from me an even greater respect of WP and the process. Gh228 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228[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.