Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Class of '58


 * 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. This is a WP:SOFTDELETE because of the limited discussion. At a glance, the "delete" arguments appear persuasive. Anybody except, who I assume is involved with the topic (see WP:COI), can request restoration.  Sandstein  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Class of '58

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. Google em..."1 - 10 of about 5 results for The Class of '58" TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be very much appreciated if someone could re-look over the page, as new sources/ references etc. have been added. In all honesty, I'm new to this wikipedia editing stuff, so if you could point out areas for improvements etc. that would be very much appreciated. The page, The Class of '58, I've created as the band are a very successful, popular and well-known band in the roots music genre. They perform all over the world each year and have a large following - So I thought that they should have a page, where people can view a brief background on the band, rather than having to go to their official website. As I said, any feedback, help and/ or advice on how to improve the article would be appreciated greatly. Thanks in advance! (Johnpitmen4) (talk)
 * Seen. Problem is, the article reads like it's lifted from an official website; I am very dubious about their notability. I would have thought that such a long time treading the boards would have generated a whole heap more to draw on as sources.TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand your concern. With regards to notability, please understand that the people that are listed that they've worked with, are the equivalent of people these days touring as the band for Justin Bieber - In fact the people that they've worked with have probably sold more records. Combined with the fact that, as the current lineup, they've gone on to become one of the most popular and in demand bands of their genre, I believe entitles them to a page. With regards to more sources, since the band was formed in 1986 they've been featured in numerous national papers, magazines and on TV and Radio, the problem is that can't be linked or found through a search, as they're physical things. Many of their peers, who've achieved far, far less have wikipedia pages. I believe they qualify. Please let me know how any improvements could be made. (Johnpitmen4) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  01:42, 25 March 2017 (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.