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 Cheers, I'^mperator 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Veins[edit]

Non notable band that has literally done nothing so far, Band created yesterday (see article talk page). Epic fail of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND. WuhWuzDat 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it was already said, the band has done nothing remarkable so far. Information can be included in the artist's articles. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, I think two members leaving and starting a new band would be a relevant information in the Panic at the Disco article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept. The Young Veins are formerly of a highly successful band. In time they will release material- they are nearing completion of their debut album. Why delete the article for it to be recreated later? Egg_Creations (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009

In short, violates WP:CRYSTAL...it hasn't happened yet, and there is no guarantee that it will. WuhWuzDat 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Ryan Ross, as he's the only notable member. The band is far from notable. It was just formed weeks, if not days ago, is unsigned, and has not released any material. Tim meh 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That article currently redirects to Panic at the Disco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.129.200 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. It seems there was no explanation given when the redirect was recently created. Ross looks notable to me. I'll revert the action for now, as no valid reason was given and it's not uncontroversial. Timmeh 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, nevermind. There was a deletion discussion a while back that ended with a merge. I still think he's marginally notable, but I'll let the redirect stand. Timmeh 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know this is only tangent to this discussion, but I'd say that the article should be restored. Now that he is not a member of PATD but is still making music in another project, it doesn't make sense to have it redirect that way. Also, Spencer Smith, a less notable member of PATD has his own article. That doesn't really seem balanced. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've restored the article. If someone wants it deleted, they can start a new AfD. Tim meh 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mentioned nontrivially by name by Rolling Stone and MTV. That seems like enough for WP:BAND #1 despite the small amount of actual musical activity so far (not literally nothing, but as far as I know only one song). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add NME to the list: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either they will have this album released, in which case they will have more than enough to be kept, or it falls through and it's still at least somewhat notable like something like Tapeworm. Also, see user David Eppstein's argument. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to come back after all this time for a relatively obscure afd, but I agree with the previous two reasons given. — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the band is a split-off from Panic at the disco, who are notable. Let's wait and see. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Has some notablility.. no need to rush into deleting the article -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep (switched from redirect) I had known the sources brought up existed before making my first comment. However, after thinking about it some more, although the band really hasn't done anything at all to achieve independent notability, they have been covered nonetheless. The article won't be able to be expanded past a stub or start class for at least several months, but the subject does seem just barely worthy of a separate article. There's nothing particularly insulting or POV in the article, so it won't hurt to keep it. If, within the next several months, especially after it has released actual musical material, the band is not covered adequately, the article can be deleted or made into a redirect then (I'll be watching it). This is a rare case where just the fact that the band has spun off from a notable band has resulted in a relatively huge amount of coverage for the band, even though it is unsigned, has only released one song, and was just formed days ago. Tim meh 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Timmeh - new band created from notable members of a former, notable band, thus barely meets WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (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.