Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All female band

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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All female band

Can't find anything in the article that suggests this concept is of note. Article is poorly sourced and appears to be a piece of original research. Note this article claims the concept is distinct from girl groups neon white talk 12:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up and references cited. As a note, the article went through the process of deletion before (Articles For Deletion:All Female Band) and the result was to keep. Having a "history" of a genre is needed, however forever labeling a musician based on gender is not. In this case this article tries to show a history of females in music - which is very fair. As fair as an article on the history of Rap Music, a history of Country music, a history of Native American music and so on. Or branching out a bit - how about a history of the Military in the United Sates that had a subsection on women in combat. Fact is, that in certain genres of music, females were always shoved in the back or ignored all together. I think it is very important to try and show a history of why that was and how it changed. Also an "all female band" is distinct from a "girl group" (As an "all male band" is distinct from a "boy band") and that issue has been discussed for a long time now as well. But that is for another discussion elsewhere.Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no sources for a distinct concept here. That's the issue, it's not enough to simple point to books about musical women, that doesnt source this concept. It's original research. --neon white talk 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Seems notable, contains encyclopedic content, and the distinction with girl groups makes perfect sense to me. Could use some help with sources but deserves to stay. --Lockley (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is notable and much has been written about it. The article even provides some external sources, but not enough - and this can and should be fixed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All female bands are widely discussed in reliable sources. Article has many references listed. Nomination makes no suggestion these references are not valid. Article clearly has problems with original research but that is a argument for fixing the article not deleting it. The difference between girl groups and all female bands as this article tries to describe is real, better description and sources are needed. Another reason for fixing the article, not for deleting it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains sources and simply needs cleanup. Any problems that I see can be fixed without deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because topic is notable. Everything else can be fixed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.