Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Dog (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The result was withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Dog (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion a bit ago and it was declined. Am now running it through AfD.

The sourcing here is not adequate: three of the references are to a website called "Sleazeroxx", and as near as I can tell from the website, it consists only of a series of posts by readers (their "about us" page just reiterates their subject area and says nothing about staff or editorial oversight, which am fairly certain are non-existent). The single reference to Allmusic is problematic because Allmusic is just that: it covers all music, without discrimination and without regard to notoriety or significance. When I try to go to the Discogs site, I get a long page of JSON code that makes no sense to me. Finally, the MelodicRock reference reads pretty much like a press release, or like it was written by the band itself: the site had no information at all about who generates its content or edits it or decides what to include or what not. A Google News search turns up nothing about them in the first few pages, at least nothing that I spotted. A loose necktie (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. A loose necktie (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Music is not problematic at all, it is an established WikiProject Music reliable source as listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and there are thousands of music artists on Wikipedia who do not get a biography or reviews there (which are written by professional music critics). I agree about the other two sites and will look for extra sources later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allmusic is a reliable source, and it doesn't give coverage to every artist. Given the band split up 8 years ago, why would you expect to find results in Google News (which only includes recent news articles)? Where else have you looked? --Michig (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage here, here, and also some coverage in Martin Popoff's book The Big Book of Hair Metal: The Illustrated Oral History of Heavy Metal's Debauched Decade, with almost certainly more in print from the 80s/90s, and their album for Geffen Records charted on the Billboard 200, as confirmed by Joel Whitburn's books on Billboard's album charts. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article needs a serious rewrite, but there's no doubt the group passes WP:BAND. As noted by Michig, their album charted on the Billboard 200 [1]. They were the main feature and on the cover of issue #274 (27 January 1990) of Kerrang! magazine – they were also featured in issue #247 (15 July 1989) and #272 (13 January 1990), as well as having a song on a two-track flexidisc given away by the magazine in issue #280 (10 March 1990)... with all this promotion by the magazine it's almost certain the album was also reviewed in Kerrang! It was certainly reviewed in Metal Hammer, in the issue 29 January 1990 (they gave it 4/5). Sources clearly exist in print media of 1989/1990. Richard3120 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (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.