Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexter Danger


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Dexter Danger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Band that never received any meaningful coverage or reviews from the typical major media outlets. They've played with some notable bands but that doesn't confer notability itself. Never charted and seems to be a typical garage band that hit a stage a few times. TAXIDICAE💰 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. Though this "garage" band has not received widespread mainstream success like its counterparts of the time, success in record sales and/or coverage does not solely determine notability. The nearly three dozen references in the article put up a red flag for me for outright deletion. That being said, I am open to the possibility of deletion should the nominator present a more detailed argument, specifically regarding notability. —  Paper Luigi  T • C 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are in depth coverage, which is required. They're all either non-RS, or not independent. TAXIDICAE💰  17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - As far as I can see, there is not a single reference from a reliable, secondary source in the article. The multitude of references listed are just things like user reviews, track listings, sales pages, etc.  Not a single one of them is actual coverage that would pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBAND.  Searching for any additional references that includes actual coverage from a reliable source turns up nothing.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant, independent coverage is the key point. I agree that notability is not connected to success, but it is connected to the availability of suitable sources. That is what we're lacking here. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 12:36, 6 May 2021 (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.