Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Before Dishonor (band)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Death Before Dishonor (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that the band passes WP:NBAND. Non-unique name doesn't make searching easy, but I didn't see significant coverage by reliable third party sources. I did see a one paragraph bio at Allmusic and one paragraph blurbs at Allmusic on two albums. Allmusic is a fine source, but one paragraph is tough to call "significant coverage". Nothing has ever charted. With no releases since 2009, it doesn't appear they're going to become notable anytime in the near future either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Allmusic coverage, plus 3 staff reviews at punknews.org, plus some coverage found in Maximumrocknroll and various other sources including Phoenix New Times and Frankfurter Neue Presse, are enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I see the Allmusic entries, but a single paragraph is hard to sell as "significant" coverage. Not too sure punknews would pass RS. Not really comfortable with a review by an anonymous staffer being significant either. It has a real pro/am feel to it. Has the source ever been discussed at RSN? As for the German one........I don't know what it says because I (and I suspect you) don't read German. Kind of tough to verify that as significant coverage until we get a translator. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two Exclaim! reviews as well, which is considered a reliable review site at WikiProject Albums.  Gongshow  Talk 20:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And a single paragraph is considered "significant coverage"? Really? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the paragraph, I suppose. 169 words, for example, is good enough in my view.  Gongshow  Talk 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I simply don't hold the same view. To me, a paragraph, or two, simply doesn't amount to significant coverage to me. If I considered that significant, I wouldn't have even nom'd this, since Allmusic did the obligatory single paragraph blurb. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — sparklism  hey! 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that the write-ups linked to above are enough to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, since there are several of them, they are professionally-written and the band in question is the primary topic of the coverage. So, I'm !voting Keep. Thanks — sparklism  hey! 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As well as the references found, releasing two albums on Bridge 9 Records means they meet WP:NBAND - barely. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:27, 13 December 2012 (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.