Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daecaunt

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daecaunt[edit]

Despite the hype the article gives him, he is nothing more than yet another MySpace artist. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For now, the blue links in the article are instruments, mostly. At the moment the described artist fails to meet the criteria of notability for musicians/bands. Pundit|utter 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an unsigned MySpace artist who has yet to release anything. I don't see anything that passes the criteria at WP:MUSIC. PC78 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I discovered daecaunt in a full page article in "mass histeria magazine" and upon research found his growing popularity in the underground goth scene to be notable. He's been on the top 10 unsigned music charts on myspace for classical, folk, and gothic genres for months now. He also has a rather notable google presence. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only WP:MUSIC criteria he comes close to meeting is #7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" (if you consider MySpace to be a city, which is a huge stretch in itself), but according to one of the references, he's no longer in the top 10, which invalidates his only claim to notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for above comment and notability. As my article states, he is in the top 10 of unsigned artists for his genres. You must specify the search criteria as "any country" for location and either "classical", "gothic", or "folk" for genre. He is currently #2 in classical, #3 in gothic, and #8 in folk. Hope this helps. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a MySpace artist, so remove for non-notability. To author: will not prevent article being recreated if and when artist becomes notable - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsigned, undistributed, MySpace generated artist. No empirical evidence of notability, and web hits are utterly illusory when dealing with web artists. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are other "unsigned" myspace artists who have wikipedia entries (with far less references, information, and web presence as well as fans than this one). Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another myspace artist. Unsigned and nothing notable such as an actual album release. BalazsH (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentative Note "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7." -quoting WP:MUSIC What or who determines that a subject is important or significant? (if not the curiosity of exposed fans of any interactive subject such as an accomplishing artist?)

From WP:MUSIC, there is a list of criteria that the community have agreed determine notability for a band or musicians. A judgement is made by the community in debates such as these whether or not an article meets at least one of the required criteria, as I understand it. - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough cookie to crack. No "A" for effort? ;) This is neat though. I never knew wikipedia was so interactive a community. :D The deletion guidline link says 5 days of deliberation before a decision is cast by an editor? Does the decision usually follow pretty quickly on the 5th or 6th day? thanks Gothicrose1970 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for professionalism and patience to everyone involved here. I am new at writing and editing here and am learning a great deal through this process. Gothicrose1970 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I realize I'm going against the grain here, but top ten artists are certainly notable, IMHO. As a note for Gothicrose1970, make a copy of this article on one of your user pages and continue to work on it. Even if it is deleted, you can improve it and put it back at a later time, but your work isn't completely lost. Who knows, he and his group might become the next Beatles?! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that being a "top ten unsigned artist on MySpace" indicated a lack of notability, because he is unsigned (per WP:MUSIC). Could you clarify what you mean? Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TYBQZip01. I did save my work on the article so far, and ty for the suggestion. Fitzpoll, just for reference' sake, go to myspace and look under the top 10 unsigned for several genres and do a wiki-search on them. Many to most of them (who have never been signed to a label) pop up on wiki. Alot of artists are not signing to labels anymore because of the cons, especially since an artist can save thousands releasing it themselves online. An extreme example of this would be the band "Evan and Jaron" who have exclusively resorted to their myspace account as their only contact revenue; and have officially "unsigned" themselves from the label scene. Technically speaking, they too are -as you put it- "just a myspace artist." Gothicrose1970 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the article under discussion adn Evan and Jaron is that the latter have released albums, and are also notable for television appearances. For clarity, I'm not saying that artists have to be signed to be notable, since this is not the only criterion in WP:MUSIC - but the artist under discussion does not appear to meet any of the possible criteria under the guidelines. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the exception of the Mass Hysteria link, all references are from self-published sources, mostly MySpace. There is some evidence from the MySpace pages that this guy is getting popular, but that's original research. As per WP:CRYSTAL, if this guy gets significant media coverage in the future, the article can always be recreated. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (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.