Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spontaneous Combustion (English 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 03:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Spontaneous Combustion (English band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Similar issues to Articles for deletion/Tris Margetts. The overwhelming majority of the references are not reliable sources, including Facebook, Discogs, RateYourMusic, and other social media or user-generated sites. The book cited ''Bournemouth Rocks! : A Brief History of Rock Music in Bournemouth, Boscombe and Poole, 1960-1980'' is by a small local history press and is held in a grand total of eight libraries according to Worldcat. This does not contribute much to the notability of the band. The only generally-accepted RS that covers this band, AllMusic, has a one paragraph stub. The remaining RS's are about notable band Emerson, Lake & Palmer, with whom some members recorded, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Despite copious WP:REFBOMBing, the evidence is not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep easily notable with releases on major labels such as EMI as shown here and Capitol Records passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 (only one criteria needed) and with significant coverage such as album reviews in Billboard and Melody Maker. Yes there are many unreliable sources such as discogs that need replacing but that is no reason to take the easy deletion route and ignore the reliable sources and the notability of the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Included in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Major label albums petty much guarantees that enough coverage will exist to satisfy even the most ardent GNG-wonk. --Michig (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nominator is correct about the article's reliance on unreliable social media sources, but that is a matter of cleaning up rather than deleting. The article needs to be significantly reduced to eliminate excessive fancruft informed by that same social media chatter. But it can be narrowed down to basic facts supported by some reliable sources on 70s progressive rock, as located by the previous voters. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (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.