Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Auxiliaries


 * 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.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The Auxiliaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All the sources are broke or unreliable. A search for more references yielded nothing of use, in fact nothing at all.( I created a search to try and remove the military and other unrelated ghits ) The award for best band was only a local award that did not give them lasting notability and they broke up the year after to concentrate on uni studies. Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't pass WP:GARAGEBAND, because the sources link to discography sites, press releases, and one of them links to myspace, which is obviously a primary source. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - They got a few local gig reviews and minor mentions of an album release, but I don't think that satisfies the requirements for non-trivial coverage at WP:NBAND. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. They are among a large number of bands of this ilk who got Wikipedia articles when they emerged during the last heyday of this style of music, which happens to be the same time vast numbers of articles were being started with little or no sourcing about non-notable subjects (I was as guilty of this as anyone).  That so many such articles were written is partially an example of systematic bias but is also an accident of history (the establishment pushing bands like this - while their fans denied the fact - on an "anything but So Solid Crew" principle just at the time that Wikipedia was exploding in size with little oversight).  Most were only marginally notable at the time and have turned out to have even less notability, and many have been deleted.  This should go the same way.  The bands of that time who were successful enough to be lastingly notable will have multiple sources beyond long-dormant MySpace pages (not a reliable source even in its heyday) and the like.  RobinCarmody (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2020 (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.