Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) (3rd 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 speedy/SNOW keep. Bad-faith nomination by page-move vandal; clearly notable. seresin ( ¡? )  05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (duo)
I nominated it for deletion in March 2008 and they are even less notable now. With Obama's election racism is passing further into oblivion...furthermore there has been no news of this talentless band for over a year and a half...the hype was extremely temporary and they are completely forgotten now. The article also lacks secondary sources, and contains info the girls' family have stated they do not want (such as their middle names, their sister's name, etc.) Barrier, mate (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Objectionable their music and motives may be, but notability is not temporary. I knew which duo you meant just by reading the name of the article, so you can't say they've been "completely forgotten". If the article lacks secondary sources it can be improved, and any BLP concerns can be removed. --Canley (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Previous discussion resulted in unanimous consensus to keep (and was speedily closed as bad-faith nomination, to boot). Notability doesn't expire, and certainly not this fast. There are at least two secondary sources cited in the article (ABC and the Yale Daily News); I'm not sure why you say there are none. As for BLP, that's a reason to fix the article, not to delete it. Also, even if it were true that racism were "passing into oblivion," does that mean that all mention of racism should be expunged from WP? Of course not. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary. The sources are there; ideology is not a reason for deletion. Just found another secondary source (the article already has enough to pass WP:N, in my opinion), from Newsweek. Perhaps it is time for the nomination to be withdrawn, for a speedy keep, for WP:SNOW? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the sources are from 2005 or 2006. Can you find any reliable source that even mentioned them from within the last year? If so, I'll vote for it to be kept. Barrier, mate (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's something from 2007: . It's not the last year, but it's more recent. Here's one from one year and one month ago: . As for this one, I have no idea if it's a reliable source, but it's a source from only a couple of months ago. Here's one from a week ago. Notability doesn't expire anyway. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As abhorrent as these young ladies are they do meet notability criteria. - J 10987 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Please note that the nominator also has nominated this article previously in March 2008 and it was kept in that instance, while the nominator was blocked for refactoring comments. He has also moved this article to Prussian Jew (duo) in the interim, which is highly unacceptable.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, please note Barrier, mate's contribs list; I move for an immediate close of this nomination as placed here by a hijacked G***p account, and an indef block of Barrier, mate.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barrier, mate has been indefintely blocked.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:25, 29 January 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.