Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stumblin' Blox


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Stumblin' Blox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lacks any sources to show notability. From what it shows, the group recorded one single that was unsuccessful and the band members cannot even be identified. ABriefPassing (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The Stumblin' Blox from Texas can be considered notable. Their work has been included on well-known garage rock compilations such as Green Cyrstal Ties and Acid Visions, which AllMusic gave 4 1/2 stars.  People are still listening to their music fifty years after it was made.  Respected music historian and writer Bruce Eder did a biographical write-up on this band in AllMusic in addition to the review he did on Crystal Green Ties Vol. 3, and he mentions this band by name in the review on the compilation (something he only does for some of the bands).  If he deemed the band to be noteworthy enough to feature in AllMusic, then why shouldn't we?  I also included book references from Mike Markesich's Teenbeat Mayhem.  I could order a copy of Green Crystal Ties, Vol. 3--there is a good chance the band members are listed in the liner notes there.  This article should be kept.  Keep in mind that it is a new article. Let's give it a chance. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While they made it into Allmusic, a three-sentence writeup isn't much of a notability endorsement. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But, before we throw this article into the dustbin, why don't we give it some time. New sources could emerge in the course of time.  Their A-side is indeed catchy and had hit potential.  We might be able to find mentions of its airplay in the Abilene area--we may end up finding out it was a hit on local and regional stations there (a possibility).  It is included on the third volume Crystal Ties, and the earlier entries in the series cover the more popular acts--there may have been some regional chart action with it.  Look, this is a brand new article.  I realize that if things do not pan out for it, then I would accept a deletion down the road, but let's just give it more time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now and at best & draft and userfy as my searches including archives found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister   talk  05:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not just keep it for now, because it will be harder to start all over and re-write it. This article's existence isn't going to cause the world to come to an end.  It might actually be beneficial to people who want to learn about garage rock and its illustrious cast of unsung heroes.  Destroying it will just get in the way of people who would like to learn a thing or two.  So, just keep it and be happy. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy and delete from article space. Fails WP:NMUSIC, fails WP:GNG. Userfy to Garagepunk66, because as they (singular) say otherwise it will be harder to start all over and re-write it, with the caveat that it only returns to article space when it has citations to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. WP:GNG   the reliability of a source can be checked by putting it up on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Allmusic.com is not a reliable source, but Bruce Eder may be, check him out there. As far as being benificial to people who want to learn about garage rock, there is a Garage rock article already. --Bejnar (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Topics to consider:
 * I have made an inquiry about Eder at the reliable sources noticeboard. I have read that that he has not only written music pieces for AllMusic, but has also written movie criticism for the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label (as well as in a host of other publications).  He also wrote the liner notes for the Rolling Stones' Singles Collection (deluxe box set).  He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials.
 * Right now the editor who nominated this article for deletion has two simultaneous accounts (ABriefPassing and ALongStay) blocked which he created for the sole purpose of harassing me. He does not have an unbiased agenda--his intention is to harm.  Please see the things he wrote on my talk page [].  This editor has gone after three of the articles I started up and has expressed the intention to go after more.  He has very few edits to speak of doesn't mind destroying a piece of historical knowledge in order to achieve a more hurtful objective.   His agenda is to stop me from writing new articles about the music I love by making me operate in an atmosphere of fear.  I would understand a proposed deletion at a later time from and established, detached, and unbiased editor.  As I've said, I would more than understand that--if it came in a different set of circumstances and after a sufficient trial period.  That would be fair.  But, this article is only two weeks old.  Why give this harmful editor the victory he craves?
 * As for the garage rock article, I am well aware of it--I worked hard expand its length almost tenfold and added over 350 references to it in the last half year (see where it was on May 27 [] and now []), helping push it to its newly attained GA status. In a time when I should have been celebrating, I had to deal with the harassment situation which was strategically planned to coincide with the Dec. 15 DYK mention.  So, I ask you to consider all of this before you push the delete button. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep as far more notable then many of the pageant winners that attract keep votes. People are still listing to them which means they have a cult following per WP:NMODEL. Article coukd use a little cleanup though as it seems to repeat itself. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how Wikipedia can rely on Google for its notability on a band from the '60's! (And now Google's relying on Wikipedia for reliability. Oh, the irony!) --MurderByDeletionism"bang!"  03:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Very insignificant band that does NOT pass GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: It is interesting how the user who just voted "Delete" has had approximately 45-50 articles deleted, so is hardly one to lecture about notability. I would say that this article looks like War and Peace compared to many of the one to three-sentence stubs I've seen this user write.  I have not gotten involved with the controversies surrounding those articles.  I also need to mention that the previous commenter has been blocked on several occasions [], where I have not been blocked once [].  I do not go around here advocating deletions for other editors' work.  I have written over 100 quality articles and have done one of the largest expansions that can possibly be done on a general article covering a whole musical genre, Gargage rock (March: [], Today)--helping push it to GA Status [].  If you don't think that I've put in some diligent work here, then think again.  But, sometimes things can get demoralizing around here for a dedicated content generator, who works tirelessly for the good of the encyclopedia.  I am a dedicated writer, who is very kind to volunteer my time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I agree with Legacypac that this passes WP:NMODEL. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Am a bit curious as to why one of the keep !votes referenced nmodel, since this has nothing to do with that.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I would err on the side of keep because of WP:BAND, item 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The fact that they have had songs released on compilation albums by the "largest independently owned reissue label in the United States" could be construed as to fall into that category, but only weakly at best. Lithorien (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I wouldn't rate this band in the same level of notoriety as, say, the Count Five or Paul Revere and the Raiders, among garage enthusists, they still have garnered some attention even though they disbanded almost 50-years-ago. The fact the band has come back to the attention of listeners is impressive, and helps readers comprehend the grand scale of the garage scene across the US.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (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.