Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Sue and The Pirates


 * 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. ff m  01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Peggy Sue and The Pirates

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Borderline band. Prod contested. This band is mentioned in a couple of sources however they read very 'blogish'. Their website is under construction so it is hard to check tour information. They have a few songs on Itunes. The get some Ghits. Bringing it here to get consensus and to put this one to bed so we don't argue over it for years to come.  Gtstricky Talk or C 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep - I haven't heard this band, but the article cites non-trivial reviews in the BBC and the Guardian - i wouldn't call that "bloggish" -, so AFAIC it satisfies WP:BAND criterion 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The third review cited indeed looks bloggish. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I'm concerned with the sources here; the BBC article looks to be a user submission of some sort (it's unsigned, and the way the page looks suggests it's not an in-house thing). The Guardian article looks okay, but the other sources not so much. Along with minimal coverage of the band, the fact they don't have an actual record out concerns me as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and stop the @#$(*& relisting. The sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain why The Guardian, for example, is not a good source. It is a reputable newspaper with a long and distinguished history and a large circulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable as there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Further 3 references added. Strummer25 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The BBC and the Guardian are top-notch sources. The fact that the BBC article is unsigned means that it is editorial content - if it was a user submission it would be signed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (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.