Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tobasco Donkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. A number of nominators commented that the ensemble passes WP:BAND, but there are no reliable sources whatsoever quoted in the article to prove this. To take the WP:BAND criteria in turn; they clearly don't pass 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11 or 12. As for the remaining criteria (1, 4 or 7), they may pass any of these; but this would require third-party citations. There aren't any, therefore, reluctantly, the only option is deletion. Please contact me if you have such citations and would like the deleted text. Black Kite 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Tobasco Donkeys

The Tobasco Donkeys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No proof that this is a notable band. No reliable sources turned up in a third party seaerch, only album is self released it seems. (Not to mention they spelled "Tabasco" wrong.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. NN. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: They did not 'spell Tabasco wrong'. 'Tobasco' is a brand of wood burning stoves which inspired the name of the group. Zybthranger (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BAND. (Also they did spell Tabasco correct) Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The band is very important and well-known in the Scouting community. Disclaimer: I just added a lot of information to the article--Ubernerd68 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - This isn't some garage band, it is an established folk band well-known in the scouting community. Additionally, as they are releasing a second album, they should pass WP:BAND. For those who say it fails WP:BAND would you care to elaborate on how exactly it fails? The article does need to be cited better, though. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart - Of the two sources I checked (Billboard and AMG), I can only find Sawin' on the Strings listed, and according to Billboard, it didn't chart, which is why it fails WP:BAND. They may be well known within Scouts, but the notability factor is - are they known OUTSIDE of that? There are no outside, independent links such as reviews or news coverage in the article that establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Notable. --evrik (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Notable on several points of notability on the WP:BAND criteria. It does need better referencing, that's true, but not deletion. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Weak keep: I think it meets notability (specifically WP:BAND #7, as it is the representative of the Philmont backcountry bands that most of the 21,940 participants experience during the summer), but it definitely has problems with citations from reliable sources. However, I think that this can be improved. I believe I've seen some reliable sources that mention them, but just like most of the Philmont stuff, there are not really any online sources. I think keep it but tag it for needing improvement, and if no reliable sources show up (which is going to take a bit of work), then there's not much of an argument for keeping it. Zybthranger (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment WP:BAND #7 only applies if it meets other criteria, which to me, it doesn't. One needs to provide third party sources outside of Philmont before I am satisfied notability is established, as per my original opinion. ArcAngel (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment:WP:BAND says "A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria". I believe it meets #7, therefore, it is notable, by WP:BAND. And while I agree that it needs better referencing, I see that as grounds for marking it as 'Needs Improvement', and not outright deletion, because I think sources can be found. Zybthranger (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a paradox to me. I interpret #7 as applying to itself. But how can it do that? ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment:I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase it? Zybthranger (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as Notable. It does need better referencing, that's true, but not deletion.-Phips (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just saying that it's notable isn't helping any. I'm finding no sources whatsoever to prove that they even exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment:As I said above, I'm pretty sure I've seen sources that meet reliable sources, but as with pretty much all Philmont-related stuff and most Scouting stuff that I've seen, there are really no online sources - pretty much everything is in print, which is why nobody is finding any when they search the internet. Zybthranger (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, as for "no sources whatsoever to prove that they even exist", a quick search just found this and this which would seem to prove that they exist. Zybthranger (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What also isn't helping its cause is no one is providing the third party sources or news coverage needed to establish notability outside of Philmont and Scouts. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (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.