Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (American duo)

Add links
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 of the debate was overwhelming keep, even with some concerns about the Afd. It's not quite been the standards 5 days yet, but to me concensus is very clear. Friday (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue (American duo)

[edit]

Administrators: please note that some votes and edits on this page have been altered. For example, the initial nominators comments have been struck through and the vote removed. This appears to have been done by User:Burwellstark (See revision of 16:11, 24 October 2005). I do not know what other edits may have been carried out. It looks like this article will be kept, for various reasons, but I think that it is important that procedure be followed, even if it is regarding a neo-nazi band that some people have passionate feelings about.—Gaff ταλκ 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Non-notable duo. Nothing noteworthy besides having serious problems. Based purely on their merit as musicians, very non-notable. Virtually all references online are to their politics/racism, instead of to their music. One album, no substantial following, not on any major listing. Delete.
  • Keep The article is valid, because it gives information about a band, it would be against Wikipedia's NPOV stand to delete it because it supports Nazis. I also came here looking for information about them. Kietotheworld 16:20, 27/10/2005 (BST)
  • Keep I came looking for this article. Therefore it should be here. One datapoint, one vote :-) --Camipco 20:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is what brought me to this page as well- I was looking for it. --burwellstark
  • Keep. The above is nothing more than one person's, or perhaps several people's, opinion. It is not an objective assessment. I believe that the girl's politics (politiks?) are detestable, and though they have been likely spoon fed this junk since birth, they are old enough to know better. However, there are other political bands, U2 and Green Day for example, with articles here, as well as political leaders who also espouse opinions that are similar, Louis Farrakhan. --burwellstark 12:09 EST 24 October 2005
  • Google test: "Lynx Gaede" 246, "Lamb Gaede" 327, and "Prussian blue" nazi 9,810. HOWEVER, there is a conspiracy theory/urban myth or the like that the chemical Prussian blue is a residue in Zyklon-B, and almost all of the google hits for this search phrase is referring to the chemical. And just for reference. "Miborovsky" gets 590 hits. If this doesn't go I'll start an article on myself! :D
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete for reason outlined above.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Comment: There is no rule that articles about bands need to be based on their "musical merits". Bands who are known almost exclusively due to non-musical aspects, such as t.A.T.u. being known for their fake lesbianism, still have articles. --Delirium 04:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: tATu's non-musical image has made them significant in the music scene. Not this band, whose only noteworthyness is racism, not the band.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's still irrelevant. There is no requirement that bands' articles be on bands whose music is notable, merely that the band be notable, as in having received some media attention, which it is in this case. I came to Wikipedia to find out information about them after reading about them on DailyKos, and was pleased that Wikipedia as usual served my needs. It would be quite sad if censorship made Wikipedia a less useful resource. --Delirium 05:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. Given the press that this is stirring up (ABC news, etc) it is more than just an article about a band. It may be that this is the kind of thing that happens and then goes away (we can hope). The ABC news story has quotes from head of the NAACP and metions that David Duke is exploiting the teens to publicize his political agenda. However, until they have sold some records (they are "planning to release their second"), or have developed more of a press sensation, they remain off the radar screen of notability.—Gaff ταλκ 04:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)—Gaff ταλκ 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That sounds like a delete vote based on a political agenda. If this were not a racist band, would we be discussing deleting it after it got this amount of media attention? --Delirium 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you read what I wrote? Its not a delete based on politics. Its a delete vote based on the fact that they have not sold many records and have recorded one (on what label anyone?--they do not meet WP:music inclusion criteria for a band). Peddling inflammatory rhetoric can stir up the press a bit, granted. And obviously this article will be kept. But I would bet, based on the content of the article and the notability of this band right now, that a few years from now nobody will be reading this article or care about this band. If WP were a crystal ball, maybe we would know whether or not they are more than a news sensation in the Fall of 2005, soon to be forgotten. However WP is not a crystal ball. But the article will be kept anyway.—Gaff ταλκ 16:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The KKK's article is about an organisation, which supports racism. It's not about racism. This article should be about the band, not its racism.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The band did tours of the US... Have you heard how shitty their music sounds?! Do you honestly think this band is nothing more than a cute and smily propaganda commodidity for the neo-nazis scum in America?
  • Keep They were not notable, but they are now. Lots of popular websites are discussing them and in case you missed it ABC NEWS had an entire segment for them. To say wikipedia shouldn't be entitled a page for this crisis in America is straight up censorship. Vote to delete the deletion page--Lamrock 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They got an article today on the most important italian newspaper, La Repubblica. Neopagan
  • Keep. We just went through an AFD for an article that covered both this group and a similarly named (non-racist) British band. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (band). That AFD closed with a KEEP on October 13. Even though the article in question was changed to a disambiguation page for the two bands, now covered on separate pages, I don't see how the racist group could have lost its notability in only 11 days. In fact, the ABC News story appeared since the last AFD closed. [1] --Metropolitan90 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly like them, but my personal feelings are irrelevant. I think they're notable and therefore merit inclusion.--MikeJ9919 05:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable members of the American White nationalist movement. --Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, they are notable, and they have made the widestream press. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree... they've gained a notable amount of attention by the press, and people are now quickly learning of them from various media sources. Since they are already appearing in various magazinse/papers, websites, and news, I think they should be able to have a place here. Delirium is right - as long as the band is notable for something, even outside of their music, they can still exist in Wikipedia. -- Shadowolf 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: with the amount of attention that they're getting, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be helping to establish their notability, participating in history instead of documenting it, and people can be famous for bad things as well as good. However, not every major news story should spawn an article, like the president and his bicycle accidents or the small child who drove a car to get Cheerios, which got a lot of attention, but hopefully don't have articles. Right now they're still too transient for me, too much of a news story than an encyclopedia article. They're on the road to becoming notable bigots, but they haven't arrived yet. -- Kjkolb 10:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Metropolitan90. --Apyule 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Subject does not qualify under WP:music. Simply being nazis is not enough qualification.--RicardoC 13:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they seem to be getting a fair bit of media coverage.Geni 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the coverage of ABC Primtime and the ammount of discussion of Blogs - a lot of further information about them has been taken from Wikipedia. I currently host a MP3 file from an Interview on my web hosting and it's been getting over 1000 downloads in less then 24 hours. 80% of these hits came from this page and to think of deleting this is insane. KEEP! -- cousincreep 07:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of their recent media attention, this is exactly the sort of thing one comes to WP to look up: "Who were those people?" --kernunrex 14:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they've been around for years and they just became way notable (IMO as utterly exploited teens but that's another tale). I would have created the article today had I not found it. Wyss 15:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"DELETE" disgusting and offensive site using children to promote hatred, don't give them more attention than they already have."

  • Keep. The nominator lists plenty of verifiable reasons to include them in Wikipedia. — mendel ☎ 17:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you disagree with their politics does not mean that they should be excluded. --scaife 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though it makes my skin crawl to say so. I originally was going to say delete per WP:MUSIC and indeed, they don't come close to that ( I don't consider their "tour" to meet the minimum requirements for an actually musical tour). Unfortunately though, they seem to have a minor level of notability based on the media reports surrounding them. On a personal note though, I hope their mother gets cancer.--Isotope23 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Note that a duplicate article was just created at Prussian Blue (musical group (sic). I've replaced it with a redirect. Ilmari Karonen 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:MUSIC is not policy. Some groups can be notable without meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria, and unfortunately this is one of them. Thatdog 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came looking for it. They may not have released a lot of music, but they are important because people are interested. Articles like this about topics like this are good for Wikipedia, as people need and appriciate the NPOV doctrine.
  • Revulsion alone shouldn't be a reason for deletion, although I squirm with distaste on reading this article. I feel very sad for these girls. Alas, keep. -- The Anome 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't understand all these comments about WP:MUSIC, as though that established the only criteria upon which a band could be considered notable. That point of view is nonsensical. If President Bush, Tony Blair, and Pope Benedict XVI formed a band, that band would be notable, immediately, without reservation, regardless of how many tours it had done or how many records it had released. This group has been mentioned in international media: therefore it is notable, period. — Haeleth
  • Weak Keep. My suggestion is to pare it down to only the first paragraph and toss the rest as unnecessary. There is extraneous information regarding the television show which shows a direct attempt to change what was said()on the show.
 The transcript is such:
   "McFADDEN: And what's your opinion on Hitler?

   LAMB: I think that he had ... he wanted to preserve his base.

   McFADDEN: He had 6 million Jews executed.

   LAMB: I think that's an exaggeration.

   McFADDEN: You do.

   LAMB: Yes.

   LYNX: I hardly believe there are even that many Jews alive back then.

   McFADDEN: Is Hitler someone you admire or someone you don't admire? ... You think he was a great man?

   LYNX: Yeah, I think he did a lot -- he had a lot of good ideas."

From this, the scene was cut to Ted Shaw, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, who stated "It really breaks my heart to see those two young girls spewing out that kind of garbage,"

From this transcript, you can see that extra information which was not in the show has been added to the Wikipedia article, for whatever reason. By only keeping the original paragraph and locking the article, all those with strong ideals (on BOTH sides) will not be tempted to use this entry for their own political motives. 

--Neurotic_poet

Talk 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. But it might have to stay protected, because on the official forums they are claiming they will watch over it and edit it constantly so Wikipedia users have "honest information [...] about half the time". Honest information being information favorable to the duo. Eztli 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Abstain, despite this article turning into a nazi soapbox.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthy for news item. --Homagetocatalonia 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable. WP:MUSIC is a red herring, since they are notable for opinions, not necessarily music. Sam Vimes 07:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable/notorious, wide coverage in news media in the US and possibly beyond. The existence of a Wikipedia article on a person does not constitute any kind of endorsement of that person's views, and the issue of assessing actual musical talent is not relevant. -- Curps 07:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep They merit inclusion in Wikipedia as famous people, their significance (or insignificance, as it were) as a band is irrelevant. David Hasselhoff is a musician too, but he's famous for other things, just like these kids are. The fact that they are Nazis or "bad people" is no basis for deleting information on them; otherwise we'd be removing articles on Hitler, Stalin and a zillion other figures. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to catalogue just the people and ideologies that are nice, but to serve as an information resource on bad things as well. Incidentally, they also got an article on them in a Finnish newspaper as well. They're also very interesting from the perspectives of sociology and education theory, and the responsibilities of parents. They're excellent examples of extreme propaganda education. --Samy Merchi (Talk) 08:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Newsworthy enough for multiple widespread mainsteam press reports is a guaranteed notable enough for an article here. Many delete votes above seem to be trying to vote on the basis of these girls' beliefs instead of their noteworthiness. DreamGuy
  • Weak Keep - Although I despise Prussian Blue’s ideas and agree with the person above that stated “I hope their mother gets cancer.” I do not think that this duo should be deleted because of their deplorable ideas that have been brainwashed into them all their lives. Likewise I wouldn’t agree to delete articles about the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Hitler and other Nazi ideas just because I didn’t agree to them. -- Levenbreech Vor 08:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, there is no point in keeping them up if Wikipedia's standing is in question because of them. This article will serve as nothing more than a warground for feuds, and I assure you the word about them is getting out. The top radio talk show in Atlanta discussed and played their music this morning, so the attention is definitely growing with an unfavorable fevor. --MonkeyMechX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.141.60 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 October 2005
  • Keep - If you listen to their music... it's just horrible. Keep it up - their idiotic ideas will go unheard when people notice how horrible the music they play is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.15.76 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 October 2005

  • Keep if it's been in the news alot it's notable enough. chowells 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it because freedom of speach on the internet is important User:Xavier 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is going to take a lot of time to maintain. Take a look at this [2]. chowells 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — however distasteful the act, I'm convinced that it's noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia had been possible during the 1930's, would we have deleted articles on Mussolini or Franco? David 01:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The girls are stupid, the doctrine is idiotic, the people involved are worthless, but they sure are notable. The article just needs to be kept totally unbiased. Devotchka 01:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the arguments above, MSNBC just ran an entire discussion on them. It also looks like they're getting some serious backing from the National Vanguard, so that's notable. Beginning 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased record of life, culture, history etc. There are bad, stupid, evil things out there, and they should not be airbrushed out of this history, and hence not airbrushed out of the record of human events. After all, Hitler and his kronnies get a mention. They are the subject of international debate (head about them this morning on Australian Radio). They are noteworthy and note should be made of them.
  • Weak Keep. They have no musical merit whatsoever, but they're notable on the basis of the Primetime report. I also think the girls are being brainwashed by their mother, and don't actually know what they're doing. --Beau99 08:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think there should be more focus for these obviously brainwashed kids and their Svengali-like mother, who has taught them to hate any other race than white. Samples line from songs, "Aryan man awake, How much more will you take, Turn that fear to hate, Aryan man awake" and the real kicker, "Rudolph Hess, man of Peace. He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease, to give his loyalty to our Cause.

Remember him and give a pause." Hate mongers with no talent, trying to subvert their peers. Do you really want an upcoming generation of people like this? Maluka 09:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI hate racism, but I mean after all Wikipedia is here for presenting information and allowing others to discover things about life, the present and the past. I mean there are articles on a great deal of morally perverse things here, including serial killing and other such things. This [Prussian Blue article] although seen as morally reprehensible by many (myself included) should be kept - as it would be strange to only report the happy facts of life would it not?
  • Delete. It seems to me that the appropriate subject for an article is the girls' mother, April Gaede. She has a history in the "movement", she puts the girls onstage, she manages them, and it's safe to assume that she chooses the songs they perform. Also, while some hate music has some artistic merit -- I'd buy a Skrewdriver album if they weren't Nazis -- Prussian Blue is just terrible. It seems likely that they'll eventually fade away -- but their mother is here to stay. Therefore, I recommend that we write an article on Ms. gaede, and merge this in. Innocent76 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Their mother being (hypoteticaly) notable is not a reason to delete this article. rbonvall 14:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it makes a lot of sense. Everyone is making the mistake that there's an event here -- as though Prussian Blue has written an original song, or sold 5000 albums, or ever played before a crowd larger than a few hundred people, at a venue more prominent than the county fair. Well, that hasn't happened. All that has happened is, an ABC producer caught wind of Ms. gaede's underground promotional campaign, promising that Prussian Blue would someday (not now) be the icon of the white power movement, and pandemonium has ensued. Do you give put someone in an encyclopedia just because they appeared on TV once? Does it matter that the TV appearance was not for having accomplished anything, but just for being freakish? (No one's written an article on the Meat lady from the Jerry Springer Show, and she's been on TV more often, for more discrete events, than Lamb and Lynx.) That's the problem with the Prussian Blue article -- there's no there there.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gaede has managed to get her daughter's album -- a cover album might I add -- national exposure, due to a consistent promotional effort in her column on the National Vanguard website. She picks the songs, she arranges the gigs, she promises a future where the white young men of America are awakened to the destiny and responsibility of the Aryan people because Lamb and Lynx are hot. "Pretty white girls sing hate music" makes a good lead on TV, but to the extent that there's any story here, April Gaede is the story.
Hence, since Prussian Blue a) have no substantial following (they don't even have a record contract), b) have made no original contribution to music, the white power movement, or any other aspect of our culture, and c) don't even pick which songs they're going to cover, I recommend that the article be either deleted or reduced to a stub, and that the media circus of the last few days be documented in an article devoted to the ringmaster, Ms Gaede. Innocent76 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI heard about these kids on Morning_Sedition and thought it was a joke. Since I was reading Wikipedia already I just typed it in and up it came. They are obviously sick twisted little puppies, but they are real, and have gained some notoriety. One other user said, "I was looking for info about them and up it came", and I concur. It also adds some insight into the mindset of Neo Nazis, Christian Identity, and Holocaust deniers, and would be good to link from those articles. --Wiki Tiki God 12:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read about them in a Chilean newspaper, and I came to Wikipedia to read more about them (yes, I also thought it was a joke). If they can get media coverage in a country which is thousands of kilometers away, they are certainly article-worthy. rbonvall 14:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above views, and came to Wikipedia to read up on them after reading about them on Drudge report. They are definitely article-worthy.
  • Keep You have black rappers listed on Wikipedia that have 'songs' about killing cops, abusing women, drugs, and so forth. Fair is fair, politics have NOTHING to do with it. TruthCrusader
  • Keep This kind of thing is part of a socio-political development within society that people need to be aware of. Most of all, it needs to be on Wiki, because here, the reporting is neutral, so everybody looking at the information can make up their own mind on the subject.
  • Keep Personal repulsion of their parentally-programmed message by 99% of wikipedians (and soceity in general) does not equate to non-notability. Have received enough national media attention in the US to count in my book. Youngamerican 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wonder how many hits this page has received in the last week.
  • Keep I came looking for this page, cause I wanted to read up on this group after seeing them on ABC news. They are hateful and racist, but that is no reason to pretend that they do not exist.
  • Keep Although many are not amused by the duo, it would be biased to delete the article. It's NPOV and to the point, so let it be.
  • Weak Keep They're probably borderline notable on WP:MUSIC, but they are notable on WP:RACIST, or at least they probably would be once those requirements were established, unless of course we try to get a less POV name than WP:RACIST. In that case, just substitute it in there, they seem notable enough in the racist community to warrant an article from the media coverage. Karmafist 23:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have a real record out, real music videos, big website, and I just recently heard about them on forums I frequent. They have been the subject of several news stories from well-established outlets. The controversy surrounding their act ensures that interest will continue to rise. They are notable. Cookiecaper 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came for this article after reading a news article about the neonazi band "Prussian Blue" on a reliable German newspaper (Süddeutsche Zeitung). 13:31, 28 October 2005
  • Keep <insert knee-jerk comment about how much I hate the band here>. <insert further comment about how hateful the girls are and personal wishes of cancer on people here>. Generic comments from the UD terrorist 28th of Oct.
  • Keep Someone above has stated we should delete the article because the girls are gaining notoriety? Am I the only person who can't see the logic in this? We may as well VFD the entire wikipedia in that case!Pigeonshouse 19:07, 28 October 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prussian_Blue_(American_duo)&oldid=1138260721"