- 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Th' Inbred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are all primary plus one dead link, and the article is written suspiciously like WP:GARAGEBAND. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All the sources already there—Trouser Press, Artcore #7,[1] and the label Alternative Tentacles— indicate notability. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://www.fourletterword.org.uk/Artcore%20Covers/artcore07.jpg){kind=link}
- All the primary sources are there. The band's record label, a dead link, and some rock band blog are not reliable, third-party sources. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more clear? The sources cited are the RS Trouser Press, the longrunning zine Artcore, and the notable independent label. I am suggesting to you that these indicate notability. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa; the "dead link" was a browser error on my part. Anyway, I would doubt the reliability of sources that cater specifically to rock. While those pieces of coverage are definitely more than a passing mention, I doubt their reliability: an interview hovers on a primary source, and I doubt that TrouserPress article too which seems to paint them in too much of a good light. In any case, if more people agree with you I will withdraw the nomination. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- you would doubt the reliability of sources that cater specifically to rock? I'm not sure you've thought that through. I wonder what medical articles would look like minus specialist sources. At any rate, i have scared up some more generalist sources.
- "Underground", Spin, July 1989.[2] "Th' Inbred: A Family Affair", Option #52, 1985.[3] Record Collector #370, December 2009.[4] "INBRED, TH’:Legacy of Fertility: CD" Razorcake.[5] "Record label reissues works by Morgantown's Th' Inbred", The Dominion Post, November 26, 2009.[6] (via allbusiness.com/lexisnexis) "Offensive Rock Band Names" in the hallowed Maledicta, Vol. 10, 1 Jan 1988.[7] 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa; the "dead link" was a browser error on my part. Anyway, I would doubt the reliability of sources that cater specifically to rock. While those pieces of coverage are definitely more than a passing mention, I doubt their reliability: an interview hovers on a primary source, and I doubt that TrouserPress article too which seems to paint them in too much of a good light. In any case, if more people agree with you I will withdraw the nomination. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more clear? The sources cited are the RS Trouser Press, the longrunning zine Artcore, and the notable independent label. I am suggesting to you that these indicate notability. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the primary sources are there. The band's record label, a dead link, and some rock band blog are not reliable, third-party sources. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources cited by 86.44.40.0. A GBooks search also indicates (albeit in snippets) there may be more useful material out there. With two albums on Alternative Tentacles and a selection of independent coverage, it looks like this is a worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia's coverage of the history of punk rock. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2012 (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.