Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screeming Custard!


 * 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   redirect to World in Motion .  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Screeming Custard!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This band appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Extensive source searching on Google News archive and Google Books is not providing coverage in reliable sources. There is one source in the article that contains a quote, but this appears to be a passing mention. Per the article, the band released two EPs, but they were self-released, sans an important indie record label. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "They released two Eps on their own Pauls Mums Front Room Records and a couple of flexi discs given away with fanzines" - that's pretty much a declaration of non-notability so delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability on Google, Google Books, ProQuest, Nexis UK, Gale NewsVault. At the time they may have got a few mentions in fanzines and maybe a brief appearance in one of the weekly music magazines, but none of that content is searchable - unless someone in the band has actual press clippings we can't do anything but conclude it's non-notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean like these? --Michig (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really what I would call significant coverage myself. Getting minor press coverage in the Melody Maker isn't really significant compared to, say, getting a single reviewed in it, and several of those clippings are merely trivia or one line mentions. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the referencing isn't good, but there might be enough there. I'll have a proper look later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's crap, but that isn't a reason to delete it when it can obviously be improved. There are articles/interviews from Melody Maker, Music Week and The One, an article from NME, live reviews from Sounds (2), NME (2), Melody Maker (5), single reviews from Melody Maker, Sounds (2), and Music Week. That's plenty. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons as Colapeninsula said. Aside from the Sounds Magazine quote in the article, and a one-liner in a book search, all other hits are unreliable. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there's enough coverage from enough different sources to support an article. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a merge / redirect to World in Motion (which is what they seem to be most notable for) might be a suitable compromise? -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * delete No sources in article like it is now. Only one editor doesn't even explain who Paul is. MarioNovi (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment While there may be enough sources to establish notability, this is still disputed at the moment. Normally, confirmation of the existence of suitable sources would be enough, but editors remain unconvinced. Because the news clippings are hosted on a SELFPUBLISHed site as images, personally I think that at least some of them could do with being included as refs within the article for good measure. I've done this sort of thing myself with articles in the past, but don't have the time to investigate/do it now, hence the relist. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. On the basis that this needs a complete rewrite, which I plan to do from scratch, I have no objection to this being deleted. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons already stated.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (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.