Talk:Bang Bang Machine

Untitled
Obviously this isn't the best article written in wikipedia, but what's this all about:
 * Not notable. Can't see any non-trivial sources. Only gets 605 hits on Google.

If we are going to have a debate about how trivial wikipedia is then there's a lot more that needs deleting before this article!

This is a real band that had a record deal, played concerts, released records, got them played on the radio & even were voted No.1 in Peel's festive 50!

Show us a link to the discussion page about how trivial wiki is (and what is considered too trivial!!!).

Most people only come to wiki for the trivia. I mean would you trust anything here that was important! Dyaimz 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Dyaimz, though the article needs some re-write, the group has demonstrated a notoriety to be included in Wikipedia. Shoessss 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PSA: Good Luck Dyaimz

To say that BANG BANG MACHINE were not a notable band just shows how a great band can be deleted and dismissed from history. Also John Peel is not a trivial source, he helped shape the music scene in the UK and beyond for years. He also actually listened to songs and bands before making a judgement about them. Any BANG BANG MACHINE fans out there are free to format this page. KEEP BANGING THE MACHINE! Leigh.

Strange article
Some of it reads like it was written by the band themselves, with no citations.

Also, odd that there's no reference to an earlier Steve Eagles outfit, The Photos - arguably more successful (well, in a conventional popularity way, rather than in a "cult" sense).