Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dear Hunter (2nd nomination)

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, with apologies to the article's defenders, your arguments were in the right direction but since they failed to convince anyone in the community, I have to interpret consensus here as for deletion. Mangojuice^talk 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dear Hunter (2nd nomination)

The Dear Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article was proposed for deletion on August 1, 2006, and the consensus at that time was "delete." Since then, it was recreated, with slightly more content, and that's why I was hesitant to speedy delete it as a recreation and wanted to resubmit it. Delete, speedy delete if there is a consensus quickly that it's still a non-notable band. --Nlu (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the article on their album Act I:The Lake South, The River North EP for deletion. Same reason. --Nlu (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - The band contains one barely notable member, who was briefly a part of the barely notable band The Receiving End of Sirens, whose main accomplishment seems to be touring with the Warped Tour in 2005. Does this get The Dear Hunter past WP:MUSIC? I don't really think so. --Hyperbole 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again. Still not notable. Resolute 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know if you are aware (probably not since your specialty is asian culture) but a band does not have to be played on the radio for it to be notable, and The Receiving End of Sirens are one of the fastest growing bands in the alternative rock music scene. Warp tour is not notable for any band, the music they make and the impact they have is what makes them notable. The Dear Hunter are on a Label, and are growing at an extremely quick rate, there are plenty of other bands on this site that are worth less than this band. If you are going to delete articles no what you are taking about before you do it. Just because you do not know the band does not mean they are not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.0.88 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Which of the WP:BAND criteria do you believe that the band is (verifiably) notable by? --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm from the area, I keep close tabs on all music, but I really haven't heard anything about you guys nor have I any inclination that you meet WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward Delete. They've got an AMG link but no profile and no review, and I can't find much news coverage. Seems like a band that may become notable, but isn't there yet. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have updated the article with more information, and there is more information readily available if you guys deem it as not sufficient.Also, the Dear Hunter now can boast two of the WP rules of eligibility.

1. 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). (Though they have not technically released the second album as of right now, it is almost finished and will be released barring any catastrophes)
2. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (The Receiving End of Sirens is a very notable band, with a huge devoted fanbase and a second major indie album in the process of being recorded)

Also, the Dear Hunter's EP has been reviewed favorably by absolutepunk.net (THE source for online reviews of punk/pop rock music) as well as Alternative Press Magazine (5/5) (Haven't heard of it? Go to Borders, there will guaranteed be a few kids dressed in black drinking mochas and reading it) This would qualify the Dear Hunter as well.--Striderider 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • All the second criterion indicates is that it might be notable enough to justify a redirect, not an article of its own. As to the first, as you admitted, it's not true yet (and I question as whether these releases are "on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"). --Nlu (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And, as an aside, I find it absolutely ludicrous ([1]) that you think that this band is more notable than emperors of Chen Dynasty, Northern Qi, and Northern Zhou. Perhaps this doesn't speak well of your evaluation on the notability and importance of persons. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Though the second criterion might stipulate the use of a redirect in the case of a side-project, the Dear Hunter has become much more than just a side project, considering its releases, line-up, and label status. That is like saying the New Amsterdams shouldn't have a wikipedia article because it is the side project of one of the members of the Get Up Kids.
  • I think Triple Crown can be considered a strong indie label (Brand New, Hot Rod Circuit... etc)
    • I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intent. Obviously in the scope of world history the emperors of Chinese dynasties are more important than a band. However, that is a poor argument. The fact that they are more important shouldn't mean that people that are less important shouldn't be allowed wikipedia pages. If that were true, I could find you thousands of articles about people that are less important than ancient chinese emperors. I was soleley using that as an example to show relevance. If that many articles about ancient chinese men are needed, I don't understand how wikipedia can't accept one more article about a great and up and coming new band.--Striderider 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The question is: is the band notable, period, by standards established by the community? I don't think you've shown it. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Nlu why do you care about a band you have never heard of so much, go back making articles about asian emperors and leave the music part of wikipedia to people that know something about independent music. If you know who bands like Circa Survive, As Tall As Lions, The Receiving End of Sirens, Brand New, Taking Back Sunday, Boys Like Girls, Kevin Devine, Dashboard Confessional, Underoath, Head Automatica, Glassjaw, Jimmy Eat World and Chiodos are, then I think you have some type of authority to talk about the subject but I highly doubt in your Asian studies you came across these bands.There is a huge music scene below the scene viewed by corporate american and mtv.--Bdonovan12 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.0.88 (talk • contribs).
• Taken Directly From the WP:Music article.
  • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
    • The fact that the Dear Hunter has met that criterion should be enough already to warrant an article.--Striderider 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, please establish that those published works are "non-trivial"? --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Well, since we're on wikipedia right now, and you are so adamant on removing trivial articles, it would be fair to say that if something has an article that has not been deleted, it is non-trivial, right? Among other reviews and interviews listed on the TDH page, both absolutepunk.net and Alternative Press (music magazine) have given TDH's first ep a good review. --Striderider 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The existence of an article does not itself establish notability -- because just because something has not been deleted pursuant to an AfD doesn't mean that it should not be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Still, there is no way anyone can dispute the notability of both absolutepunk.net and Alternative Press magazine. They are two of the most respected and widely read sources of critique for this kind of music.--Striderider 17:09, 6 January 2007 (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.