Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot City Bump 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 no consensus.  So Why  18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hot City Bump Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable band; only one release of theirs seemed to have charted, and even then, only in Melbourne. I also could not find enough significant coverage about this band; even the only YouTube video I could find admitted that the band "was not very commercially successful". Given the band's age, it's possible that some coverage might exist offline, and indeed, the same YouTube video hints that the band might have been somewhat influential in the Melbourne music scene of the 1970s. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has an entry in Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop . duffbeerforme (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting find. Are there any other sources out there? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources McFarlane used to do his research. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not convinced that the band are notable enough (as per the nomination). Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per duffbeerforme. according to a quick Trove search, [2], there are four contemporary articles from The Canberra Times (I haven't checked the substance of those entries, I'm busy elsewhere).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * first one is good, it's a record review. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 4 August 2017 (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.