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.
This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a
Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at
WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article:
over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Two albums on
Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --
Michig (
talk)
18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if
User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NBAND and
WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.
4meter4 (
talk)
02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more.
Dsp13 (
talk)
11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The coverage will be in print sources and I'm not able to get to anywhere that has archives of print sources at the moment. --
Michig (
talk)
18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep the
Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes
WP:GNG on available evidence as per
WP:AGF in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
02:03, 5 October 2021 (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.
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.
This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a
Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at
WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article:
over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Two albums on
Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --
Michig (
talk)
18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if
User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:NBAND and
WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.
4meter4 (
talk)
02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more.
Dsp13 (
talk)
11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The coverage will be in print sources and I'm not able to get to anywhere that has archives of print sources at the moment. --
Michig (
talk)
18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep the
Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes
WP:GNG on available evidence as per
WP:AGF in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
02:03, 5 October 2021 (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.