Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanther (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 of the nomination was Keep Eluchil404 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: This AfD entry was incorrectly listed on the July 5th articles for deletion page for some amount of time today (link was to previous AfD). This has been corrected.--Isotope23 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not notable, perpetual stub, limited number of contributers suggests possible vanity

• Perpetual stub - Would someone looking for information on Japanther get any useful information out of this article that their website would not massively superset?
• Limited number of contributers.
• Wikipedia ought not to be another platform that places "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music. Can you think of any reason why Japanther is more notable then any other of the 5 million bands in New York City. This has not been accomplished in the entire history of the article. If a less stubby article could be put in place, I will happily retract my nomination.

--Jonathan Williams 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Jonathan Williams only has 9 contributions and 6 of them are in regards to trying to delete the Japanther article. This article has already been through a deletion process in December 2005 and it failed, because the nominator realized that the band is notable and withdrew. I don't understand the point of these AfDs, especially this one. You saw I dePRODed, why didn't you express your concerns to me directly instead of dragging this out into another AfD? Japanther has a very large cult following all over the U.S., more so than other mundane bands. They have an allmusic page, they've been reviewed by pitchforkmedia.com (among other sites), and rated at last.fm. I will say it again "Wikipedia ought not to be another platform that places "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music". --Howrealisreal 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, Meets WP:MUSIC guidelines... though they are definitely close to the line.--Isotope23 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Well-known indie rock band, clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC. Here is a link to a Pitchfork review. Is currently touring the country, see the tour section on their web site. This is a no-brainer and should never have been nominated. Please do your homework before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion. Amazinglarry 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, "obviously" notable is apparently in the eye of the beholder... This band is very near the line of WP:MUSIC. There are 3 provided sources, but none is so expansive as to make the "trivial" clause of WP:MUSIC a non-argument. The tour could be argued either way as well. Personally I don't rate bar shows as a tour. Probably the best claim towards WP:MUSIC is that Japanther is notable on their local scene, but nothing has been advanced to prove this. I still opine keep because while they are on the line, they appear to be on the inclusion side, but calling this obvious is hyperbole and Amazinglarry would do well to read WP:AGF before saying this should never have been nominated.--Isotope23 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Band satisfies WP:MUSIC. I also concur and applaud Amazinglarry's rebuttal: "Please do your homework before nominating obviously notable indie rock bands for deletion." Messwemade 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Japanther has a very large cult following all over the U.S., more so than other mundane bands" is not quantifiable. Many barely notable indie bands have "national tours" (perhaps this should be discussed wherever AfD criteria is supposed to go). Playing crappy Food Not Bombs shows for three years != notability. Last.fm inclusion is a very very dubious criteria as it has a much more liberal inclusion policy and little editorial oversight. Again, if you can expand the stub, please do so. (as far as the paucity of my edits, I've finally decided to register after making a moderate number anonymously.) --Jonathan Williams 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily fits "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" criteria in WP:MUSIC, Google shows (146,000 ghits, btw) it's been featured in Vice Magazine, Gothamist (per article), Dusted Magazine, The Stranger (Seattle), Dallas Observer, New York Magazine, etc. Also I like to reiterate that article length is not a criteria for deletion, nor does it necessarily prove any obscurity of the topic. hateless 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to the above mentioned mags etc: Also featured in Razorcake Magazine and soon to release a DVD on Recess Records. Highly notable companies and this is a highly notable band.Messwemade 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argumentum ad Google --Jonathan Williams 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's not, because I'm inspecting the content of the links Google brought up. hateless 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see any "non-trivial" content on the first few pages, dude. --Jonathan Williams 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
        • Did I volunteer to a hair-splitting contest somewhere and not know it? hateless 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:29, 6 July 2006 (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.