Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hugs


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The Hugs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill local band. Does not meet musical notability criteria. Google hits are either local press (not regional or national notability) or vanity hits. Article originally written and continues to be updated by one or another publicity agent for band. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A profile on them in Interview Magazine, with passages that are clearly secondary and available to cite, one of the most historic and loved magazines in pop culture that is sold internationally is not small secondary sourcing. That is definitely not local publicity. I also see detailed coverage in NME, one of the biggest music magazines in the UK and in the world. A review in the Portland Mercury. Obviously passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No "run of the mill local band" gets that coverage. Also, Google Search is not our arbiter-- the sources available to us to write the article are. Much love x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Most of the coverage is fairly local, the rest isn't really in-depth to any degree, but there's maybe enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Michig really. Most of the coverage is local and none is in-depth. So that means the person doesn't meet notability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Valeince (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A notable profile on them in Interview Magazine, and a quote in New York Post by acclaimed movie director Gus Van Sant that both have quotes and detailed coverage. Those two articles are not small secondary sourcing. That is definitely not local publicity. Detailed coverage in NME, Interview Magazine, and New York Post seems more than sufficient. Both articles are in depth including quotes. Article could be edited to remove less regional and local coverage, if needed. Multiple features in the Portland Mercury and Willamette Weekly are borderline regional and are both notable publications as well as in depth. Article passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I don't see any signs of 'vanity hits' in Google upon search. The national articles written on them from NME, Interview, and New York Post do come up in search results. Also, Google Search is not our arbiter-- the sources available to us to write the article are.Beinganiceperson (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because they have local coverage doesn't mean they only have local coverage. This article has the secondary sources to pass WP:GNG-- just because it also has local sources as well doesn't contaminate its notability as a band. Interview and NME are two of the biggest international publications in print music/cultural media. They absolutely should not be discounted.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Also it seems their music has been featured on HBO's Girls, a Gap commerical, ABC, MTV. This is not a local garage band, no matter if your personal taste isn't them-- we should asses them with the facts available to us and not assume they are a local-run-of-the-mill band just because we personally may not have heard of them.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not much experienced with AFDs and notability standards for musical groups, but the Interview Magazine article (included in the article) and other sources look substantial and non-local. --Doncram (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (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.