Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumb Blondes


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Blondes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Maybe there's a music guru around who can verify some of the claims in the article or otherwise prove notability. I could not: delete as a non-notable band, though I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The band does appear to claim a notable member, Phil Collen, though it is pretty tenuous I must admit.  This Def Leppard fan site confirms the earlier band and at least one recorded and released song.  Phil Collen's profile on Def Leppard's official website also mentions the band in his profile.  This google search proves the band existed, and there are some youtube links in there which confirm most of the songs.  -- Jayron  32  06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenuous indeed... I could live with a redirect to Phil Collen. What do you say? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'm 50/50.  Per WP:PRESERVE, someone worked on putting this together (I organized it and wikified it, but the text belongs to someone else).  Let's just see how this AFD plays out and see what other people's perspective is on it.  -- Jayron  32  19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried improving but the only thing I could find was some mention in GBooks about them having played a show in 1980 with some other band. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Reluctant, but still a delete. I put some effort into searching, since it really looked like someone put some effort into writing the article, but they just aren't notable and I don't see a case for WP:IAR here. :(   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Moderately successful - They released a single and a compilation on Fresh Records (UK) in 1980.  They meet WP:BAND 6 and are close on 5. I have added a cite to the article.    Th e S te ve   07:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source added is discogs.com, which is the IMDB of the music world: user generated content and not at all a WP:RS. WP:BAND states that meeting one of the criteria may be an indication of notability, and personally I think 6 is the weakest of the whole pack... If these guys had been covered just two times in some kind of legit music magazine of the era, then they'd be notable—but since most of those magazines are defunct and/or don't have archives on the web, we're stuck with waiting for someone to write an article based on the 25 year old stack of magazines in their attic. :(   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, just out of idle curiosity, is there a site or sites that are more reliable than discogs? this one?  here?  I mean, is there really any doubt that they had a record with Fresh?   Th e S te ve   06:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lol. i'd just confirm it to my satifaction then cite either record as a primary source. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're getting off track here—I'd be happy to continue the dissuasion in User Talk: space, for example—but the problem with discogs and 45cat are exactly the same as the problem with IMDB. The problem with these kinds of sites is that they are built from direct user contributions and have no editorial oversight—the same reason, by the way, that WIkipedia itself is not considered a reliable source and is banned from citation in most school papers.  To illustrate the problem, there is absolutely nothing preventing me from going to discogs or 45cat and creating a new entry about the band Livitup and the Death Rays, with a full listing of the 30 albums we have released over the last 20 years.  Of course it's all a lie, but how do we know?  It's an illustration of the "I read it on the Internet, it must be true" problem.  I doubt their entries on these two sites is part of a conspiracy to launch a massive hoax upon the musical world, but I don't know.  Now if they were reviewed in the L.A. Times, or any of the print magazines of the era, or Billboard, or really any reliable source, then there would be no question at all.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the record itself could be used as a reliable source, but it does nothing to prove notability. Anyone with enough cash and vanity can have a record pressed.  I also forgot to provide a couple links in my comments above: WP:IMDB for that discussion.  From WP:N  " if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."  The album itself is a reliable source, but it is a first-party source (a.k.a. primary source) and so it doesn't do anything to meet the notability requirements.  The rest of the offered sources are not reliable, so we are left with no reliable, third-party sources to affirm notability.  Sorry... :(   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Steve's point, which you've missed thru being somewhat robotic re discogs, is that having releases on Fresh Records goes towards notability via WP:BAND 5. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't missed that point. I get that point, and my rebuttal to that point is that WP:BAND states that meeting one or more of the criteria may indicate notability, and the WP:GNG is still the overriding guideline.  This band is so notable that it has been mentioned in reliable, third-party sources exactly zero times. Participants in this discussion have offered non-reliable or first-party sources to prove notability (which is really the only issue here), and I have tried to explain why the offered sources do not do anything to prove notability.  Honestly, except for 2 sentences about the 6 songs recorded and one sentence about the single released by the band, the entire article covers what the members did before and after their association with this act.  If it's worth mentioning, it's worth mentioning in the artist's articles, not in a standalone article.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have misread you when you said "it does nothing to prove notability. Anyone with enough cash and vanity can have a record pressed." Re "overriding", WP:N explicitly says either/or. Point 5 likely exists for this very scenario, where, as you say, there's probably a bunch of coverage in somebody's attic. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are going in circles here. I'm not even convinced that releasing a "double A-side single" or having those two same songs included on a compilation album featuring multiple artists from the label match the definition of #5—"released two or more albums".  Beyond that, the fact that these two releases are virtually invisible 25 years later should indicate the notability of the band.  But I think you get what I am saying too... I can agree to disagree in this case. :)   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, technically they don't. Its a single, and on one album.  That's why I said they were close on 5.  I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt with other things like hits on youtube, so long ago that you won't find any web articles on them, and that a single back then was a lot harder to get than now.  Still, I was hoping that there was a reliable resource for old albums...  Th e S te ve   06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So which of us shall kick off the ExtravaSCANza at Kerrang! HQ? :D  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was the Bass player Pete Webb throughout both transformations of the band.This is all notable!!, I put it together!, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfywiki (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Just incase the closing admin doesn't notice... the above editor seems to be a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep As detailed above, more or less per WP:BAND 5 & 6. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll be the first to say the article needs major work, but I'm working on trying to fix the problems. Gringo300 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sound nomination, but I am ok keeping this around for awhile to see if it can be improved, or if not, where the usuable content should be moved to.  Few bands have been as influential as Def Leppard, so its reasonable to see spinoff articles like this for organizational clarity.  See, e.g., The Nosebleeds, the first musical endeavor of Morrissey.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:25, 23 January 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.