Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:04Z

[edit] The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls

The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) � (View log)

Image:Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Nonnotable local band. Only source given is Delusions of Adequacy, a music-review site open to submissions by anyone. Speedied twice and reposted by author who claims they're notable as the leading rockabilly band in Adelaide, Australia. I think it still fails WP:BAND, but bringing here for consensus. NawlinWiki 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment i am the author of the page. contrary to what nawlinwiki has said the source i quoted, Delusions of Adequacy (DOA) is not open to submissions by anyone, only the reviewers employed by the site submit material. however anyone is able to contact them giving them information about music they would like o see reviewed. however this music is chosen at the discretion of DOA. the site is well established, having been formed in 1999. it is classed as an e-zine rather than just a website and they post new material on a regular basis. as an established e-zine they have an editorial team which regulates the content. i have contacted the editor in chief of the site in order to get more details of the site's editorial policy.

i also believe that being the only band of a genre in a city of more that 1 million people constitutes a level of notability suitable for a small wikipedia article. the band's notability is likely to increase this year as some of the most notable psychobilly bands in the world will be touring australia, and as the only local act in that genre it is highly likely that they will be supporting these acts. i feel that this is surely notable enough to make a wikipedia page for them suitable.

as i said i contacted the editor of DOA and asked his to either contact me with details of the editorial policy of DOA or to post the information here. either way more details about the reliability of the site will soon be availiable and i ask that enough time be given for this to happen.

finally i would like to ask about how much research nawlinwiki did into the source i quoted before deeming it unreliable? thank you --T3hllama 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edeans 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per article author. /Blaxthos 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment are those votes or what??--T3hllama 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Don't delete. They're responsible for a new wave of music in Adelaide, therefore I think they're worthy of an article.— Taigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I am Raul69, an Adelaide citizen. I am very in touch with the Adelaide music scene and not only is this band 'The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls' highly respected (and only) psychobilly band but they are a a highly respected and popular band in general. Within a year of coneption, the band has been added to the hugely popular 'Scorcherfest' bill and one of the biggest events in the Australian Psychobilly/Rockabilly calander, the annual Kustom Kulture Weekender. This page provides useful information for psychobilly fans from around adelaide and south australia who might not otherwise have heard about this band. I have also looked over this DOA site and I found it to be a good site and thorouly reliable. — Raul69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete One review on a site of questionable notability itself does not equal notability. The guideline is "multiple non-trivial written publications". Also, T3hllama, these are not supposed to be "votes", this is a discussion. The standard format is that you place your opinion (whatever it may be, keep, delete, neutral, etc.) in bold and then explain it. You should read about the articles for deletion process. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless more sources emerge. One review in one insubstantial source does not meet policy.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have received an email from Kyle O'Donnell, editor in cheif of DOA. here is a excerpt:

"DOA has been around since 1999 and offers new content (album, mp3, and concert reviews as well as features, interviews, etc.) every weekday. We have a dedicated staff of writers chosen by the editors (myself and Jenn Patton). We do not accept content written by anyone not on our staff. Furthermore, DOA receives about 30,000 unique visitors per month.

We are dedicated to helping preserve the spirit of independent music and a number of links to DOA reviews already exist on various wikipedia pages."

as he says links to DOA articles are already used as references on other wikipedia pages. if this is the case then this shows that wikipedia has accepted DOA as a reliable source priviously, so why do you not in this case. --T3hllama 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some articles use links to DOA does not make it ipso facto a reliable encyclopedic source. We are not doubting that this source exists, or that it does what you say it does (namely, that it reviews music in the Adelaide area.) However, having been reviewed once in a minor local newspaper does not meet the guidelines at WP:N.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DOA is not a minor local newspaper. they are an international e-zine review music from all over the world not just my area. i feel that some research should be done by people before they dismiss a source as unreliable, such as actually looking at the page or contacting the editors.--T3hllama 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an international ezine with only 30,000 readers actually makes it less of a notable source than if it were a local newspaper. Furthermore, one can't leave it up to every editor to contact the management of a magazine and prove its notable. Everything has to be self-contained within the article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

while a small readership does indeed make it less of a notable source, a readership of 30,000 is still quite large. i can assure you that if any further reviews are written they too would be credited.--T3hllama 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I wouldn't even class DOA as a single source who has written about the band. "Send us your CD/single/MP3 and we'll review it" sites are astonishingly common. Footnote 1 of WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." In my opinion review sites such as these do not meet this standard, they are not writing about the band as such, just the music they have been sent to review. One Night In Hackney 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But as stated the subject of each revue is chosen at the discretion of the editors. they do not review every MP3, CD or single sent to them. they choose songs or CDs to review based on their own impressions of the song or CD. writers also search for material as well as seleting from the material sent to them. they arent a cash for comment organisation.--T3hllama 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no such disclaimer on the site, or in any message purported to be from anyone involved with the site posted here. That isn't relevant to my point anyway. My point was that a band is considered notable if a writer independently publishes an article about them. Reviews of songs or CDs are not covered under that in my opinion, otherwise every band that has ever been reviewed in more than one fanzine could be considered notable. One Night In Hackney 06:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If a review by an independent person is not considered to be an article about a band what do you consider to be a relevant article about a band?--T3hllama 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My previous point was clear and unambiguous and clearly outlined my position. It should also be noted that ignoring Wikipedia (and mirrors) and Myspace, the band has 14 unique Ghits. One Night In Hackney 07:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

if your previous point had been clear i would not have need to query it! i shall ask you again. if u do not consider an independent review to be an article about a band what do you consider to be an article about a band? also, having checked out the Ghits you pointed out i would like to say taht if it was not for this wikipedia page i doubt the band would feature on a site in russian. 14 unique Ghits when not including wikipedia and myspace is also significant i think. the band are also waiting on a full review from a german based psychobilly magazine to be published in the near future. in this case it was the magazine that contacted them asking for a CD rather than the other way around. would that be a suitible article or do you dismiss all review as unsatisfactory? --T3hllama 08:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous point. I will take no further debate in this debate over a totally non-notable band. One Night In Hackney 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as NN failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. --RaiderAspect 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment i have a futher query. if this page is not notable, despite all the information on it, and this is grounds for deletion, then why are no all stub articles deleted? surely a stub, having hardly any information at all can be considered notable. --T3hllama 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The existence of other similar articles is not a reason to keep or delete the article in question. Leebo⁸⁶ 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether the article is complete or sourced or whatever, but whether the subject is notable. It comes down to a question - could a complete, encyclopaedic article meeting all Wikipedia policies be written on this topic? If the answer is "no", it shouldn't be here. If the answer is "yes", then the article needs to diversify its sources. Simply being a good band in the opinion of its fans does not qualify it. Note this is not an indictment of anyone or of the band - there's a band I'd *love* to write about, is big on the local scene here in Perth, sells out concerts at local venues, has been on the Big Day Out lineup twice, gets daily Triple J airplay and is about to release what could be their breakthrough album. They're still, however, not notable at this point. Orderinchaos78 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable. No albums, no indication of chart success, no indication of major label signing and, regardless of the status of DOA, one review does not equal multiple independent sources. Nuttah68 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. This isn't a debate about DOA, but about whether this article should be deleted. Re previous comment, I wouldn't list "major label signing" as a criteria though, as numerous bands have become extremely notable without one (John Butler Trio comes to mind). Orderinchaos78 09:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for not having adequate verifiable sources to establish notability. As the sole verifiable indicator of notability, "Delusions Of Adequacy.net" isn't good enough. Testimony about how good or important something is will rarely sway opinion in an AFD debate. Here is the place to discuss the article and relevant guidelines - the article is the place to show notability. Shaundakulbara 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it fails WP:BAND. It's not an issue of inadequate verifiable sources, it is more the fact they would not exist at all because this is a small obscure band that hasn't made it DanielT5 13:57, 9 February 2007 (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.