Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Guts & Pussy


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood Guts & Pussy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No record of ever charting found at Allmusic or Billboard. Apparent lack of signifcant coverage by reliable sources. Minor one paragraph mention in one source and a short 1 paragraph review in another. Has been tagged for improvement since 2008 Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable album by notable band that has received significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the significant coverage? It's sure not in the article. The notability of the band is debateable.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Reviews, etc here. Article has also got refs. The fact that it's been tagged since 2008 means nothing when showing notability.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has refs. A single paragraph from Allmusic, a single paragraph from Trouser Press, an interview in OC Weekly where the album is mentioned once, fungusboy.net and a mention in a book.5 trivial mentions don't make significant coverage. One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - nonconstructive nitpicking over meaning of the term "Significant." I repeat my vote and comment from this discussion. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The word significant is in the criteria for a reason. Otherwise is would just say coverage. A single paragraph is not significant coverage. It's trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Allmusic and Trouser Press have more than passing mentions of this album, and here's more coverage at Pitchfork, which I added to the article (I am also interested if anyone has access to the Spin piece that rated this as the "most offensive cover" of all time, noted already in the article and also here); WP:NALBUMS appears to be met.  Gongshow  Talk 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've all seen the Allmusic review. It is a paragraph. No news there. But I would like to point out that the other so-called significant coverage, the Great Indie Discography is viewable on Google books and the coverage of the albums is essentially a list. Little more than titles and dates about the albums. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point concerning the Great Indie Discography; indeed, I did not regard that listing as significant coverage.  Gongshow  Talk 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the content of this book on Google Books, but I have a copy of it. As well as a discography listing, it also has bios of each band/artist, which in this case includes: "The DWARVES career reaching a climax of sorts with their outrageously titled 'Sub Pop' debut, 'BLOOD GUTS & PUSSY' (1990) - featuring an equally disgusting sleeve pic that again found them coming under severe flak from feminists." I'm not claiming this source as significant coverage of the album - I added it to the article for purposes of verifiability, not notability, and have never claimed otherwise.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this link: Niteshift36 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any content - maybe it's only shown in some countries.--Michig (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Erring on the side of inclusion, there appears to be multiple agencies providing coverage of this album and band, and even if the coverage is not significant by some standards it is at least ample.  RFerreira (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (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.