Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dellwoods


 * 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 merge to Mad (magazine) § Recordings.  MBisanz  talk 03:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Dellwoods

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources are Discogs (which is user submitted) and personal blogs (which are unreliable). No better sourcing found in music publications nor publications giving the history of MAD. Deprodded with edit summary of "it's fine" which does nothing to address the issue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 23:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 23:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Mad_(magazine) Getting coverage here:,. All is passing or not significant and tied to the recordings for Mad. Wish I could find more but this is really testing the limit of my search ability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. My problem with a merge to Mad (magazine) are,
 * 1) that article is pretty long already, 47kb which approaches the 50kb point where you might want to think about splitting the article, so this will start to constrain that article unless we go thru a splitting. If we split off MAD magazine in other media right now, then I guess a merge there would be OK.
 * 2) But even so the non-Mad stuff about the Dellwoods isn't a great fit for the Mad article, but we probably don't want to delete it either -- if you think there's material in the article that should go, that's a good place for the article talk page rather than here.
 * 3) I prefer short one-subject articles. Others don't. It's a matter of taste. Your tastes may differ, understood.


 * So anyway, the entity most probably meets WP:NMUSIC in that they have two records on a label Bigtop Records which, I don't know if that qualifies as "major record label or one of the more important indie labels" but they do have an article here, published Del Shannon and other bluelinked artists, and apparently were capable of America-wide distribution.


 * We know that it meets the WP:GNG if the sources are OK because there's enough material there to make a 4.7kb article. So... let's look at the refs.


 * Re Disogs, we do have Discogs artist} to make Disogs easier to cite, which seems not consistent with a bad source. And that template is transcluded in 11,550 articles... I don't know the details about how Discogs is written, but as an objective fact it's a fair source, I have used it and seen it many times over many years with no problems or complaints... But more importantly (and it's understandable that people don't know this), a lot of their facts are backed up with photos of the actual record labels, like here. These photos are 100%, legit, so we can 100% rely on facts so ref'd. Most if not all of the Discog refs are backed by photos. Besides which, there's a link to AllMusic which gives a second source for a lot of the Discogs facts.


 * And I mean only half (6 of 11) of the refs are to Discogs. So yes the others are mostly blogs, but it's not a good look for veteran editors to be like "Blog Taboo!", there are a whole lot more subtleties then that to vetting refs, which a lot new editors don't know yet and others don't care. It's a good idea to discourage editors from reffing to blogs before they are more expert, but you and I are beyond that Ten.


 * So let's see... the two facts ref'd to to "Doo-Wop Collector" (a one-person operation) are seconded at "Doo-Wop" (could be more than one person, or not) and vice versa, and neither looks to be copying the other (the facts they give and their prose are different). That is a good sign when you are dealing with amateur experts -- maybe they can't afford an independent fact-checking operation, but they are effectively fact-checking each other.


 * Sam Bobrick is very probably an OK source for facts about himself in the way he's used here, Josiah Hughes is just ref'd to his opinion, and it's 100% reliable that that indeed is his opinion (and it turns out -- I did not know this -- he's a professional music critic and writer and [https://cmw.net/speakers/josiah-hughes/ editor, so his opinion is not worthless). Chuck Rothman has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and he's written for the big mags like Analog etc. He's a serious guy and he takes his blog seriously. That doesn't prove that any of his facts are OK, but its a data point.


 * And by the way I'm not using Rothman to ref "The first single from it was massively popular" or the Doo-Wop Collector to ref "Before the album was released Mike Ellis overdosed on drugs" and so on. I'm using them to support basic facts that are indubitably true, and almost always in a context where there are two, three, or four refs independently reporting the fact. There's almost no statement here with just one ref, unless its an opinion or backed up by a photo. One statement by Sam Bobrick about himself where it's just vanishingly unlikely that he's lying or misremembering, and even that's backed up at Discogs.


 * What more do you want.


 * That's not counting a seven-paragraph review of one of their albums in an external link (admittedly in a obscure/local source, but still, a legit publication) which probably some number of bands here don't have and maybe couldn't. And it's not counting the several good new refs that User:Vladimir.copic came up with.


 * AfD is not really intended for articles like this. Let alone PROD, sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources you mentioned are all personally published blogs on Blogspot, or Discogs which again, is user submitted and not an RS. It'd be like using another Wikipedia article as a source. Your filibuster completely ignores WP:RS, WP:V, and so many other points of Wikipedia policy that I have no idea what you're even trying to accomplish. I didn't need you to also go all tl;dr on my talk page, either. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mnmh. Well, I hear you, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's let others weigh in. But... I don't think "filibuster" is fair, yes my post was long but it's not (overly) prolix (I think), its detailed argument constructed of considering and vetting each ref beyond a simplistic level, and other (I think) cogent points. It's complicated. It requires thought, and that means it requires words to communicate beyond the soundbite level. We're supposed to be diligent, here. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to Mad (magazine) § Recordings, which will serve to improve that article. North America1000 01:28, 28 November 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.