Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dolly Rockers


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dolly Rockers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable band which failed to make it into the X Factor finals. One single, no albums and "tours" of shopping centres and schools don't make them notable per WP:BAND Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. They seem to be here to stay, whatever one might think of their talent. Might the interview with The Times the day before you nominated the article change anything?. Or the Yorkshire Post article the same day, Or Digital Spy last week, the Torbay Herald Express two weeks ago, or the Guardian last month? You did look for sources, right? hmm, their songs seem quite catchy actually... Fences and windows (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. They're quite clearly a tangible group - they're all over youtube, have their own website and are getting lots of airplay. They're a pop group. They're real. They exists - so why shouldn't they have a Wikipedia entry like 1000's of other bands that exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.220.220 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009
 * Well of course they exist. That is not in doubt. What is in doubt is that they are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.  Simply saying other bands have articles is not a reason to keep this article.  References from reliable sources (like those mentioned above) may show that they are notable enough to stay, but any references need to be added to the article and not just mentioned here.  Astronaut (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Add them then. Fences and windows (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I feel they are more notable than so many bands who have pages that arent considered for deletion, though the page desperatly needs to be rescued for vandalism. (Kyleofark (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Can you add references (from reliable sources) to show that they are notable? Simply saying less notable bands have articles is not a good reason alone to keep this article.  Astronaut (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Astronaut, you could add the reliable sources I found rather than asking others to. Notability has been clearly established, so the article is not going to be deleted. There is no rule against nominators improving articles. Fences and windows (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep--thanks to Fences and Windows. Nominator, you would do well to respond to Fences, who has a point: you, as a nominator, have an extra responsibility to look for sources (which are SO obviously there, see this, for instance) and to add them to the article. I think you should have another look at WP:BEFORE. In the meantime, I have added those sources to the article and cleaned it up some--work you could have done also. Given those references, some of which (I haven't checked, sorry Fences) already referred to above, it is probably a good time to withdraw the nomination, so we can have a speedy keep and get back to editing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 6 June 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.