Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow White (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Snow White (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per rationale at first AfD closed as no consensus. Apparently just another MySpace band. None of the coverage is significant nor in-depth enough to pass WP:BAND. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: as with the first AfD, it's difficult to make a decision without access to the music magazines from 2005 – NME and Dazed & Confused are mentioned in the article, but they also apparently had reviews in Q and Uncut as well. But we don't know for which of their records these reviews were for, and we don't have access to those periodicals at present. The paucity of their output isn't a good sign either – two singles limited to 500 copies for the first one and an unknown quantity for the second, a live album available from selected outlets and limited to 200 copies, and an EP limited to 1000 copies... even if they sold every copy, it looks like this band sold barely 2000 records in total in their entire career. Finding those reviews would help their case, but at the moment I'm leaning delete, in the absence of any solid sources, and in any case we can safely say they've had negligible lasting impact. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment couple thoughts here...the article dates to 2005 and its initial edits seem to have been written shortly after reading about them in (among other places) the NME. Given that at least one of the original sources mentioned in the article has already been dug up, I think it's more or less reasonable to assume they got the attention the article claims. The fact that coverage might be missing from online repositories is not surprising - even 'comprehensive' archives of noteworthy publications turn out not to be so, much of the time. Of course, slogging to some place that has back issues of all of these magazines is tedious, and unlikely to get done in five days, even if someone had the impetus to do so. But since notability is not temporary, if they reached the threshold in 2005, they'd be notable, even if their long-term impact was minimal. Chubbles (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little coverage found (a concert review from Gigwise which briefly covers the band as they were only the second support act was probably the best, along with the Vice piece from the first AfD). At the end of the day, they didn't last long enough or do enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If they did receive significant coverage, nobody has yet been able to identify it. --Michig (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2018 (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.