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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave Howard Singers[edit]

Not Wikipedia notable. The sources used in the article are connected to singer-songwriter Dave Howard. The sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources. As for the topic itself, there does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep A few (but not many) of the articles listed as references would actually qualify as non-trivial secondary sources, but they fail WP:RS seeing as they're reprints on the band's website, and not ~~from the original publisher~~ on a third party, independent site. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you're assuming that the band is actively misrepresenting these sources, why would it matter whether the article is hosted by the band or not. We've used, for example, scans of paper sources in peoples "press review" sections before. The one I checked was a scan, so unless someone went to the trouble of typing up a fake article - in a suitable font and layout - and then scanned it, all against the possible need for a WP:RS ... I'd say that without evidence that the press clippings are fake then Occam's Razor rather suggests we can assume they are valid. MadScot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy, if we were reviewing paper sources, would you insist on the original print copy of a newspaper, or would you accept a photocopy, or a print from a microfiche copy? The latter are just as easy to forge, if one were so inclined. MadScot (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point, and of course I'd accept a microfilm reproduction of a print article, but I'm always dubious of things reproduced on an organization's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just quoted statements presented on the page, or a retyping, or similar, I'd agree entirely. Anyone can type "MadScot is the Greatest editor ever, signed, Jimbo", but having it in the right font and such and on a letter head would be a bit more reliable .... MadScot (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've convinced me, I need to assume good faith concerning these sources, lets let it stand. Source issues aside, the charted hits establish notability in it of itself. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. The Dave Howard Singers had a number 4 hit on the UK Indie Chart with "Yon Yonson", (I have a source with Barry Lazell's Indie Hits book) and I have two other good sources - an allmusic bio, and Martin C. Strong's The Great Alternative & Indie Discography, which has a bio and discography. I remember seeing them on television back in the 1980s (on The Tube (TV series)). The band featured, at various times, former and future members of Subway Sect, Poison Girls, and The House of Love.--Michig (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the allmusic bio isn't great, but it's still significant coverage in a WP:RS.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press articles reproduced on the DHS website appear to be genuine, by the way. I remember them getting a fair bit of press in the 80's, and they all look totally plausible.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yon Yonson" was at number 5 in the indie chart at the time when this was broadcast on primetime national UK television on The Chart Show.--Michig (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Poster's Feedback - Thanks to all who have commented on the article (especially those who have defended it). My original intention in writing the article was to cover an intriguing cult music act whose professional links and career provided an interesting perspective on the UK independent pop music scene at the time, and whose story had enough interest in itself to provide readability and notability. I accept the broad point about sourcing material from a subject's own homepage (and generally try to draw from other sources when writing articles) but on this occasion the most effective compiling of information was carried out on the subject's homepage by means of scans from original printed material (In some cases this can be the only source, as many publications do not archive online as effectively as major newspapers). Michig also makes a good case for keeping the article due to the notability of Yon Yonson as a chart hit. - Dann Chinn (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with everything Michig says above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. There are a lot of sources to the band's own website, but sometimes bands like to keep copies of external press coverage and the sources also include 2 books and a magazine article. So there are at least a few reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (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.