Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop Dead, Gorgeous (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop Dead, Gorgeous
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The two news citations I was able to find do not constitute significant coverage, and in one case it is clearly not a reliable source, and in the other it is arguably not. The rest is fansites, myspages, etc.

Note that a previous article on the same band was deleted via AfD a couple years back (though plenty could have happened since then&mdash;it just appears not to have). Bongo matic  01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The prior deletion was because, as Capitalistroadster spotted, the article was a copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, the band is signed to notable record labels; Rise Records and Geffen Records (which is owned by Universal Music Group). Also they've performed at the Warped Tour- Binary TSO  ???
 * Yes, however WP:MUSIC requires:
 * "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" &mdash; don't thin Rise Records qualifies.
 * "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" &mdash; performing at the Warped Tour without generating non-trivial coverage doesn't qualify. Bongo  matic  01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News comes up with a number of articles from the past month on them. . Google News Archives shows that there have also been non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wish folks would actually examine the Google hits to assess their relevance before just slapping links to search pages into these discussions. Of the "number of articles from the past month" (i.e., 20 hits) linked by Capitalistroadster, some are irrelevant hits for unrelated occurrences of the phrase, and I'm not seeing that any of the others constitute significant treatment in reliable sources. Some of the hits in the wider Google News search may involve such treatment; but many of them seem to be comments on what a crap band this is, and I'm not sure that any of them negate the policy-based arguments of the nominator. Let's either put in a good-faith effort to cite specific reliable sources that establish notability or refrain from muddying the issue, people. Deor (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster did cite a specific one in the first AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that was more than two and a half years ago, and the result was still the deletion of the article. What exactly are the sources that meet the requirements of WP:BAND? If they exist, I'd be happy to see them and to register a keep !vote here; but just citing unspecified results of Google searches doesn't cut the mustard. If there are sources that make the existence of this article uncontrovertable, why aren't they evident in the article, and why haven't they been referenced here? It's not too much to expect, surely, that those who advocate the existence of the article supply specific and verifiable references that would make such an outcome beyond question. Deor (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the source that was the problem in the last AFD discussion. It was the fact that the article was a copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Uncle G for the hints. I've added a bunch of references just now—there's enough there for the general notability guideline, meaning enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul for your work on the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N per User:Paul Erik's contributions. Here's another source that covers the band in the Stockton Record: dissolve  talk  05:20, 26 February 2009 (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.