Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beijing Spring (90's "soft rock" band)


 * 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.  Singu larity  04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Beijing Spring (90&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure if this is notable, so I'm putting it up for a discussion. Makes possibly spurious claims about being in the top 40. Notable? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lots of assertions but no verification anywhere in sight. a £4m deal for a band that had only 3 EPs released, I don't think so somehow. Add to that the fact that the article looks atrocious and one has a large D vote coming from the Hamster.--WebHamster 06:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Promotional, no sources, fails WP:MUSIC badly. Realkyhick 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was hard to even verify this band existed... but they were mentioned in a Who's who of popular music . Nothing on AMG or even Google News Archive... Google coverage seems to consist of people selling copies of their recordings and little more. Kind of curious that a band on a major label would be so hard to find any sources on... it's not like the early 1990s was so long ago. I get the impression they were backed by a label but never really materialized in the market? Whatever the case, needs more sources, otherwise delete. --W.marsh 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources and new material added. Grateful if this article could be saved 3seat 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: if the sources (the UK top 100 search engine linked in the article) is to be trusted, this group has had a #43 & a #53 on the UK charts and would pass WP:BAND, information not provided before the majority of the "deletes" were recorded, so relisting. Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The search engine came up with two singles placed in the top 50s. I'm thus inclined to go for a keep. However the article needs major rework, wikify for staters.  1 redrun  Talk 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep They do pass WP:MUSIC on a couple of counts, even if just barely. The £4 million deal for a completely unknown act is unlikely in the extreme and should be removed unless someone can actually verify the figure. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The GBP4m deal was reported as fact by The Times as per the quoted article 19th January 1993, page 35.  I have a hard and soft copy of the article and you can also see a copy online courtesy of The Times archive. 3seat 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - two entries in the UK charts, also confirmed by listing in Guiness Book of British Hit singles. How about a less cumbersome Rename to something like Beijing Spring (band)? _ fchd 20:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.