Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Duster

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Duster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The superficial referenciness of this article comes from such peerless sources as a self-published book on vanity press lulu.com and blogs. There is a namecheck in one reliable sources and a namecheck in a rather less reliable source, and that is it as far as admissible sourcing goes. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book referenced is not a vanity book. It's an excellent Australian music resource and thoroughly reliable. The section on Blood Duster demonstrates this well. 121.219.61.6 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it's a book self-published through vanity press lulu.com. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile back in the REAL real world, Brian Giffen has nothing whatsoever to do with the band. So your point is totally irrelevant to the subject. 121.214.28.199 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, released on multiple real labels - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following is some of the articles about them that appear in mainstream Australian newspapers. Not surprisingly, no reviews of Cunt. Surprisingly The Age reviewed Drink!Fight!Fuck! duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart, Paul (24 November 2002), "Blood's lust for the shock.", Sunday Herald Sun

Brady, James (14 October 2011), "Last Tassie blast for Blood Duster", The Examiner Newspaper

Zwar, Adam (3 June 2001), "Worse than Eminem.", Sunday Herald Sun

Thow, Penny (6 May 2004), "Metal with a sense of humour", Hobart Mercury

Rocca, Jane (7 February 2003), "Entertainment Guide - D.F.F.", The Age

Brady, James (1 November 2012), "'Useless' album continues to sell", The Examiner Newspaper

Feel free to add some then because the article as I found it looked like a bog standard garage band with three fans and a dog. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple notable labels should have been a tipoff - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I Googled '"blood duster" melbourne' and there was enough in the first few pages of results to at least indicate the the subject is likely to be notable. Any issues with current sourcing in the article are reasons from improvement rather than deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They even have a charting single.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They appear to satisify WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was only one band member in dispute and it seems that he has been verified by the reference to the Encyclopeadia of Australian Metal, which lists Jason Fuller as one of the sources for information. This Bio is notable and it should be restored to it's previous version before the band members were removed. I was the person disputing the original names, and now I can see there have been some viable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.96.167.201 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2015 (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.