Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ogdens


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ogdens

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to establish notability of the band per WP:BAND ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not-Delete, This article should not have been recommended for deletion as Wikipedias own deletion process recommends that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Issues with the page were not notified to the author but the page was recommended to be deleted anyway.Gusdeadman (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify how the band meets the threshold of notability outlined at WP:BAND? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ogdens meet the notability criteria No.1 and 5.


 * 1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles. -  I have numerous live and record reviews from British newspapers and foreign magazines. How should I cite these?


 * 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). - Their album is also on an indie label that has been going for ten years and is currently on it's 87th release including . Should I just say that in the article? Does somebody keep a list of labels that fulfil the criteria that I can refer to? Gusdeadman (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to criteria 1: To cite sources, you can very simply add:
 * Newspaper/Magazine article:
 * Book:
 * Website:
 * You put these at the end of the statement which the reference supports (e.g. The band performed sell-out gigs Wembley Stadium for 10 days in a row in the Summer of 1967.
 * With regard to criteria 5: their forthcoming album is their first, so they fail to meet this criteria. It may be the label's 87th release, but a band does not inherit its label's notability - even if the label was to be considered notable from Wikipedia's point of view, which as they do not have an article is debateable. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite a search, I was unable to find reliable, independent sources of information either about the band in general, or specifically to back up the claims made in the article. If Gusdeadman can provide adequate references as mentioned in their comment above, from reliable sources, I would be quite happy to change my recommendation, but until then I see nothing that shows notability as per WP:MUSIC. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Going entirely on WP:MUSIC - note a lack of released albums and a lack of sources on a search. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not-Delete, Citations now added with multiple references to reliable sources establishing notability within the criteria laid down Gusdeadman (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Struck second keep !vote from Gus. Gus, please, only one !vote per person. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This was simply an update alerting people to the fact that I'd amended and improved the article. I did not realise it was a voting situation. I thought it was about strength of the argument. If using the tag Not delete a second time was a mistake then I apologise, I was not trying to get two votes.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very important note, Gus, is that this is not a "vote", this is a concensus. We aren't a democracy here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dennis, with all due respect, it was you who wrote "Gus, please, only one !vote per person." I never thought it might be a vote until you mentioned it. In this context what did you mean by that phrase?Gusdeadman (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should explain. Note that I said "!vote" here - in this case, we're using the boolean operator, so this translates to "not vote".  Suffice it to say, padding with multiple "keep" !votes doesn't help, and unless the other users can come up with a good reason to keep the article (that is, demonstrating notability per relevant criteria that is verifiable and from reliable sources), canvassing doesn't help - and neither does creating multiple accounts. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One more note - PhantomSteve's commentary bears a lot of weight in this discussion given the circumstances. It is on his pointers that, if followed, will change my mind.  So far, the number of resources you have are not something I can rely on.  Narrow world view?  Maybe - but it is on this double-edged sword that we keep everything on Wikipedia of the values we adhere to.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not delete - The Ogdens released three notable EP discs, one of which John Peel played regularly on his BBC Radio One program and achieved critical acclaim in the New Musical Express, circa 1987. -- previous unsigned comment left by 71.88.36.151 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — 71.88.36.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Thanks for adding the references, they certainly don't harm your case! However, I am still concerned that there is still not sufficient evidence of their notability:
 * 1) The late John Peel played many songs from many artists - yet not every one of those would be counted as notable from Wikipedia's point of view.
 * 2) Having a single produce by Peter Watts is obviously good for the band, but he has produced hundreds of records, including for obviously notables such as Lenny Kravitz, XTC, John Martyn, Kirsty MacColl, The Cult and Lloyd Cole. The fact that he produced one of their songs would not in itself make the band notable, any more than the fact that he produced for the named people/groups does not make them notable.
 * 3) Being on the same bill as The Stone Roses is not notable. Notability is not inherited - The Stone Roses (and most other major acts) have often had a minor act on the same bill as them, most of whom would not be counted as notable.
 * 4) The singles reviews, though useful as information, do not indicate notability. The sources involved (Record Mirror, NME, MM) all review hundreds of singles every year - most of which are not notable in the long term. What we really need to see is an indication that any of these actually charted - that tends to be the basic criteria for the notability of a single, an EP or an album.
 * Overall, although it is good to see sources like this, the overall impact is not enough to persuade me of the notability as per WP:MUSIC. I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but what I would like to see is something beyond reviews that were written at the time of release - that might imply that they were thought to have potential to be notable - I would really want to see something written a few years after showing that with hindsight the band were recognised as being something different to the hundreds of other bands that turn up every year. I can't think of any notable band who have only released 3 singles and no album (their debut album is yet to be released). Air play, while good, isn't a criteria we can use - For example, Black Lace's "The Birdie Song" received a lot of air play during the summer of 1981, yet no one in their right mind would suggest that it should have an article! Very few bands have articles if they have not charted. So, for me personally, I would need to see some indication of their long-term notability - and the fact that they only ever released 3 singles, none of which seem to have charted, and have not released an album (I would have expected them to have released an album in the late 1980s when their singles were released - why the 20 year wait? If I was a cynic, I would say that they are trying to re-launch a washed-up career) would seem to indicate me that they are not notable enough for inclusion.
 * Incidently, I know I said that I needed adequate references - and the ones provided are certainly useful - but they do not show the significance of the band. NME, MM, RM, etc would have had lots of similar singles reviews, and most of them would be for bands who also do not justify having an article. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course The Birdie Song deserves a page and indeed does have one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Dance . We are not snobs, are we? We are not here to judge the subject matter of the article, only the quality of the article. The Birdie Song was possibly the nadir of British music and IMHO anybody who bought it should be ashamed but it was a cultural phenomenon and is a valid part of Wikipedia, as is everything that is real including The Ogdens.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The Birdie Song (in this case The Tweets version) is only mentioned in three sentences in the Chicken Dance - the article is not actually about that one version, but the Swiss song from the 50s. As that song has been recorded in so many variations and languages, it deserves an article of its own - but the Tweet's version or Black Lace's version would not. Unless you are saying that the Ogden's work has been re-recorded in multiple languages (and achieved success)? --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply No Steve, that was not my reasoning and I don't know why you would think that. I was saying that whether we feel a song, band, or other art work is "important" or not in a cultural sense is irrelevant to whether it should appear on WP. What matters is that someone thinks is. You sought to use The Birdie song as an example of something that was unworthy of a page. I disagreed with you and pointed out that it did have it's own page. The Chicken Dance and The Birdie Song are the same tune, it is an instrumental, the words were added later but not used by The Tweets. I wasn't trying to catch you out merely to point out that our points of view are different but equally valid.Gusdeadman (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a record played by John Peel is certainly noteable. Having all the singles released by a band played by John Peel and having one chosen for the monthly five song selection he played on the World Service is even more notable. John Peel did indeed play hundreds of songs by hundreds of bands but rejected thousands more. He was an arbiter of taste for at least four generations of British and European listeners. Having his stamp of approval is significant. If The Ogdens were good enough for John Peel then they are good enough for Wikipedia.
 * Reply As much as I admired and respected the late John Peel, the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia does not include "If John Peel played their songs, and especially if he chose one of their songs for his World Service selection, they are automatically notable". Again, apart from press attention at the time of the release, these singles and the band had not achieved coverage in the 2 decades since. They split up, and now they are releasing an album, and I am beginning to suspect that you have some involvement with the band, and want to help publicise their new album (and the band themselves). If this is not the case, I apologise publicly here, but that is the impression I am getting. Again, find some significant coverage (apart from at the time of their 3 single releases in the late 80s) which demonstrate that they are notable long-term. I have specifically mentioned finding books, etc, apart from in the late 80s when they released their singles - I couldn't find any, but my resources offline are limited. I can't think of any other band who released three singles in the 80s (which didn't chart), and who were never heard of again, who would be counted as notable as Wikipedia defines notability. As I said on your talk page, there are other wikis out there who have less stringent criteria for inclusion, I am sure there are websites out there that would be quite happy to add your material, or you could develop your own wiki/website - then you can decide on the criteria for inclusion. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you list those sources? I'm only guessing here but you probably only checked online. It's foregivable but as the band split up in 1990 you must bear in mind it's unlikely that much of the documentation was transferred to online sources. I have cited all the documentation I was able to gather from printed records at this short notice. It's always best to check offline as well as online. Though I understand it is more difficult we need to be thorough.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom and WP:BAND - no significant coverage and no evidence that their album or singles have charted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sales and chart position are not the only criteria for noteability. The article cites multiple press reports as is required by the first notability criteria and only one of the criteria needs to be fulfilled for the subject to be deemed noteable. So by Wikipdia's own rules this article should stand.Gusdeadman (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response I would be interested in knowing how long each of the mentions referred to in the article are. If they are just a paragraph each, then that may not be counted as significant. Also, if they are based on the band's press releases (I don't know, that's why I'm asking), then they also would not be counted as significant. My personal opinion is that getting coverage in the music press at the time of release, but not getting any beyond that, does not make the band notable. As I pointed out above, although the three publications are notable themselves, they review hundreds of singles and albums every month, most of which would not count as notable. My main concern about this band is that they released 3 singles, which did not chart, 20 years ago - and apart from mentions in the music press at the time of release, there has been no mention of them since. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Steve, here is the paragraph count you asked for. BTW the average is 5.5 paragraphs per article rather than the 1 you suspected. However this is interpreted, I hope you appreciate that I have tried to provide as much information as possible. There are undoubtedly more references to be added, these are the ones I can find in my collection for now.
 * 1. Single review, Danny Kelly (New Musical Express, 13/08/1988) - 1 paragraph
 * 2. John Peel Show, John Peel (BBC, 22/06/1989) - Radio Programme, Record play plus 1 minute discussing the record, most records only merited a brief mention to give the name.
 * 3. Single review, (Sounds, 25/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs
 * 4. Dangerous Bands In Safe Hands, (Musician - The Journal of the Musicians Union, September 1989) - 3 paragraphs
 * 5. Doing it our way - The Ogdens, Lizzie Hird (Pimlico Matters, February 1990) - 11 paragraphs
 * 6. The Ogdens, Jimi (House of Dolls Magazine, August/September 1988) - 10 paragraphs
 * 7. Puffin Power! The Rich Issue No. 69, TS (I-D Magazine, May 1989) - 4 paragraphs
 * 8. Debut single for former triangle DJ, (Coleraine Chronicle, August 1988) - 3 paragraphs
 * 9. Ogdens face Maggie's seduction, Robin Yates (South London Press, 1/12/1989) - 9 paragraphs
 * 10. Stan by your Man, Mr Wang (Jømp Avak Magazine, 1988) - 48 paragraphs
 * 11. Live Review - Kennington, Simon Doobery (New Musical Express, 20/2/1988) - 6 paragraphs
 * 12. Live Review - Goldsmiths Tavern, Stephen Dalton (New Musical Express, 25/2/1989) - 2 paragraphs
 * 13. Live Review from The Cricketers, Vic Park (TNT Magazine, Issue 308) - 5 paragraphs
 * 14. Live!, Andrew Mueller (Melody Maker 29/9/1990) - 5 paragraphs
 * 15. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs
 * 16. Single review, AS (Record Mirror, 27/08/1988) - 7 paragraphs
 * 17. Single review, BC (Record Mirror, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs
 * 18. Single review (New Musical Express, 24/06/1989) - 2 paragraphs
 * 19. Single review, Jonh Wilde (Melody Maker, 24/06/1989) - 1 paragraph
 * 20. Single review, Jerry Smith (Music Week, 17/06/1989) - 1 paragraph
 * 21. Single review (Spex Magazine (Germany), November 1989) - 1 paragraph
 * 22. Single review, Simon Williams (New Musical Express, 11/11/1989) - 1 paragraph
 * 23. Single review (LAW, 6/11/1989) - 2 paragraphs
 * Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not delete - Notable as stated above and a significant cult band of the indie scene of it's time. This page would be a huge boon to researchers, as it was to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonager (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Moonager (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not delete - concur with contentions of notability as stated above. I saw the band live many times in the late 1980's, own all three singles, and was delighted to find that a Wikipedia page existed when they came to mind recently and I searched the net for further information on what had become of them. I am surprised and disappointed to discover that Wikipedia bases its decisions regarding what does and does not qualify for inclusion on such arbitrary criteria, so much so that I have created this account for the express purpose of saying so.Patrowles (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Patrowles (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Gus, if that's you, please don't do this. Please see WP:SOCK as to why.  It doesn't help your case. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dennis, surprisingly enough it is actually Pat Rowles, a quick Google would have established that, judging by the top link at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rowles, he is a musician with a well earned identity of his own. I am getting a bit sick of the juvenile intimations and insults being heaped on me, my article and the article's supporters. Your point of view is not helped by this. Please stick to the point.Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply No, to be more accurate, it is a Pat Rowles (if indeed it wasn't deliberately created by someone to look like it was him). There are probably hundreds of Pat Rowles in the world, so even if this is an actual account created by an editor called Pat Rowles, there is no indication that this one is the same one as you mention. Even if it was, CDBaby is not an independent source of information about him, as its sole aim is to sell music. I'm not sure what you mean by "the top link". Also, while I can understand that you might feel accusations are being made against you, I'm not sure what insults are being heaped on the article's supporters. It has been noted that the other supporters have little or no (in this case, none) edits outside of this discussion. This does not imply that they have been created solely to leave keep comments - it just shows the admin who will make the final decision about the article's fate that those accounts appear to have been created solely to leave a comment on this page. Experience has shown that these type of accounts are seldom from legitimate editors. But the admin will take this into account. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - How do we know who anybody is on here? This could just be an one person's multiple personalities in conflict. There has to be a certain amount of reality accepted. I accept that there are people out there who have never heard of The Ogdens and you have to accept that there are people who remember them, even if they have only been mobilised to contribute when recognition of part of their past is threatened. Gusdeadman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gus, please go to this essay and read up. Note also that multiple personality disorders, in this context, mean nothing - sufferers of this should see a psychiatrist.  The reality we accept is that you are indeed a fan, but you have not yet proven notability - this is the "certain amount of reality" we work with. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - The point I was trying to make was that I am not Patrowles and he is not me. I am also not any of the other supporters of the article here and I accept that the opposition are also individuals and everyone is a legitimate editor. In your insinuation you apparently claim some sort of seniority/superiority. You do not have that. Although this is not a democracy all opinions are equally valid. However, I believe your arguments are poor and none of the opposition appears to have done any offline research.Gusdeadman (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have already mentioned, I looked offline for information and could not find any. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gus, all I can tell you is that I know damn well I have no superiority - only experience. And with PhantomSteve's statement that he found no offline articles, it doesn't look good. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 04:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Twenty three offline references listed above. The future's bright I feel.Gusdeadman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Ignoring the ongoing sock/meat puppetry issues at this AFD, the article is lean at best. Seem to fail WP:BAND - bluntly; get notable, then get an article. Pedro : Chat  21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a relative newby I am learning what makes a good article. This article is being improved as we speak and should be given a chance to improve rather than deleted. I believe it has already satisfied the first notability criteria and I will be adding more detail as time goes on to further re-inforce the credentials. Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The argument against the article appears to revolve around notability judged purely on what can be found online. This is a very narrow view of the world, all sources contemporary to the subject need to be taken into account. The Internet barely existed when The Ogdens were playing live and most of the material is in printed or photographic form, this needs to be borne in mind otherwise Wikipedia will become a precis of the Web, documenting only things that have already been well documented and not become the serious repository of knowledge it aims to be. Gusdeadman (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Gusdeadman, I am going to reiterate what I have said a few times one final time. I have freely acknowledged that resources may need to be found offline. However, to show that the Ogdens were indeed as notable as you claim, you need to find references to them beyond the publicity for their singles when released. If they are notable, then there should be references to them in books about music history, books about the Indie music scene, books about 80s music - and in magazine articles written in the mid-90s onwards. I again freely admit that in the limited resources I have to hand (local libraries) I have been unable to find a single mention of them in any of the books I could find about these areas. You mention Wikipedia being a serious repository of knowledge - that is indeed the aim - and to be taken seriously, the articles need to be demonstrated to be notable. Notability does not mean that there were mentions about the band in the year or so that they released the only 3 (non-charting) singles they produced. Almost all bands who released singles could have those references provided. To be truly notable, there must be some mention beyond that time scale. This band released 3 singles in 1988 and 1989. All the references provided were published between February 1988 and September 1990. Coverage of a band which extends for 2 and a half years could hardly be considered significant coverage - especially when you consider that 11 of the 20 provided references are reviews of the singles and 4 are reviews of their live performance. Unless evidence can be provided (and as I say, I've looked offline but found nothing) that they received significant coverage somewhere (probably a book or a newspaper/magazine article) showing that they were considered notable outside of that period when they were releasing their singles, then I cannot see how you can justify them being notable. The very fact that Wikipedia is trying to be a serious repository of knowledge means that this article should be deleted. Otherwise, people who come across the article will say "OK, so they are a minor band who released 3 singles that didn't chart - why the hell are they in this serious encyclopedia, when they don't seem to be notable in any way". Your very argument points to the reason why (in my opinion) this article cannot be in Wikipedia.
 * You are obviously a big fan of the band, and want an article about them on Wikipedia - but being a fan is not enough to make them notable. Find other artists (preferably ones who have articles on Wikipedia) who have cited The Ogdens as a big influence. I couldn't find any other article on Wikipedia that mentions The Ogdens - and there are lots of articles about notable Indie bands... was no one influenced by them? That would be another indication of notability. The article Indie_music_scenes shows quite a few British bands in the Independent Music scene - none of these appear to have been influenced by The Ogdens, or if they do, no sources have been found to indicate that.
 * This will be my final word on this matter, unless evidence of notability is established as per the criteria I have given here (and elsewhere). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Indie_music_scenes is a very light page and fails to mention Merseybeat or The Beatles so I wouldn't be tempted to cite this as a definitive guide to British musical culture.Gusdeadman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response The Beatles were not an indie group -they may have started off that way, but quickly became a mainstream group. The Merseybeat genre covers both indie and mainstream music. I specifically gave the link to the Independent music scene in Britain and Ireland as your argument is based on the fact that you perceive The Ogdens to be an important part of the Indie scene. That link was provided as an example of the kind of groups that should refer to The Ogdens being an influence. See also Category:Indie pop groups - none of the groups listed their (not just in the British sub-category but also in the other sub-categories) mention the Ogdens as being an influence. My thinking is that if a group were truly notable, and are still notable 20 years later, they should have influenced later groups - and yet I can find no references (online or offline) that show that they were influential on other groups - in the Indie scene or in mainstream. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response What happened to your "final word"? Anyway, my point was that, it was a very poor page to cite. Other descrepancies include mentioning Lily Allen, who is on Warners and omitting Trip Hop.Gusdeadman (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Twenty three different citations seems pretty notable to me. Having a record company deem that they are worthy of a retrospective album release after twenty years seems very notable to me. Record Mirror wrote at the time of the second single "the summer of love will be remembered by the nation for their debut 'Beautiful Day'" just because some researchers have failed to pick up on this does not mean they did not have a certain importance within indie music. I'm not saying they changed the world, just that this is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. Gusdeadman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Being 'worthy' of a retrospective album isn't indication of notability. I would be a bit more convinced if it was being released by a major label rather than a minor independent label like Firestation Records, but my impression is that this is just a washed-up band trying to revive a jaded career that has not gone anywhere major. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Please stop insulting the group, it undermines your point of view. Anyway, how is a band "washed-up" when they have an album out in a few weeks? They seem far from being "washed up", it's clear the story is not over yet.Gusdeadman (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We've given you the guidelines many times over now! How many times do we have to tell you to follow the guidelines if you expect to see this article get something other than deleted?  You're running out of time.  Forgive me for sounding like a dick, but it's time for you to put up or shut up. You want to make me say keep?  Then quit arguing and fix the article! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 18 September 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.