Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Go Getters


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While there has been a late shift in sentiment that points to 'keep' due to changes to the article during this debate, the changes to the article actually make it really hard for me to assess whether this should be closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus'. This is because some comments were made prior to changes, others after the changes, and the relevance of those made prior to the changes are hard to assess.

What I do know for sure is there is no consensus to delete here in this discussion. I've elected to come down on the side of no consensus for the simple reason that if this needs to be explored again (referencing the 'new' version of the article) in the new year, it can be done earlier than if I was to close as 'keep'. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The Go Getters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and does not appear to meet NBAND. The sources cited in the article are not RSes: DISCOGS, Beat offers paid native content, Worldkustom.com has no editorial standards and appears to be an SPS, and volt.fm is a website to track Spotify statistics. The Weekend Edition is the only RS, but that does not provide SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music,  and Sweden. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) :


 * It`s a Swedish band, most sources are in Swedish language, that`s why you can not find much info in English about it. Please take a look at Swedish version of the page: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Getters Wikirapguru (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Their Swedish article has zero sources and almost no biographical information, making it even less useful than this one. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - They've had a long career and probably a small regional following, but I can find no reliable and significant sources on the band in Swedish or English, nor have their albums received any pro reviews that I can find. They have a few of what appear to be magazine articles, already cited, but the nominator is correct on how they are unreliable and probably paid promotional services. All else to be found is from the band's social media and occasional fan blogs. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (18 days later...) I am changing my vote to Undecided due to the improvements made to the article since the nomination. The folks below found some sources but I am not convinced that they add up to significant coverage for this band, though my stance has softened and Admins can judge the other votes below. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know @Doomsdayer520 that Julle has added additional sources; see below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that the Swedish version of the page can stay, but the English one has to be deleted? This does not make much sense to me. @Doomsdayer520 Wikirapguru (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wikirapguru: Other language versions of Wikipedia are not relevant in determining whether this article meets the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:OTHERLANGS. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How so?
 * I thought Wikipedia is a Wikipedia, there is 1 set of global rules. It makes no sense to say that Swedish version can stay, but English version must be deleted.
 * Do not close this discussion, I am going to have other unbiased editors like @4TheWynne look at it and decide on the outcome. @Doomsdayer520 Wikirapguru (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not one set of global rules for all Wikipedias. Each Wikipedia community is self-governing. I would agree that if this version of the article is deleted, the Swedish version should also probably be deleted, but that will be up to the editors at Swedish Wikipedia, not us here.
 * Regarding closing this discussion, deletion discussions are usually allowed to run for 7 days and they are usually closed by administrators. You cannot choose who will close this conversation. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a set of global rules, they all have their own rules. I encourage you to look at WP:OTHERLANGS. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Voorts and Darling for chiming in while I was absent. @Wikirapguru severely over-reacted to my comment about the band's Swedish article. This person told us to look at the Swedish article as if that could inform this discussion, so I did. I said absolutely nothing about deleting or keeping the Swedish article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a severe over-reaction, just an inexperienced editor who wrote an article in good faith and doesn't quite understand how deletion decisions work across different language versions of Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has experienced a lot of editing activity since this nomination. Can editors review the additions and see if they make a significant difference? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above the sourcing issues outlined. even if it was notable for the Swedish Wikipedia (which it clearly seems to not be, given the article there has zero sources), the band has nothing reliable on them, just a small cult following and a few seemingly promotional articles. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't read too much into the lack of sources on Swedish Wikipedia. We don't spend as much time cleaning up old articles if they seem plausibly notable, given the much smaller number of editors – whereas sources are required for new articles, it's easier for an old unsourced article to survive on Swedish Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, which means that people spend less focus sourcing them even if sources could be found.
 * (It's not unimportant! It's just that with one editor for every fifty editors on English Wikipedia, there are more articles to handle per editor. Sometimes lack of sources says more about Swedish Wikipedia than about the topic.)
 * In this particular case, I'm hopeful but not certain there are good enough sources to save the article. I've started by adding a full-page article from a few years back as a reference. /Julle (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * fair enough, I'll keep here then; good work. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a few hundred articles about them or mentioning them in the Swedish newspaper archive which covers most of the recent years (Retriever Mediearkivet). It's missing most from their early days. I've started adding something. /Julle (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that we don't have access to the article that you just added, and if you can find a few more sources providing significant coverage, would you mind providing a brief description of each source? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * In terms of sourcing, Wide Open Country and Ameripolitan are lists of award winners, not SIGCOV. The Bettajive Review is SIGCOV, but the website itself is an SPS. However, the people who run it are formerly journalists, so it's kinda reliable but there's no indication that they have a fact-checker or editor on staff. "Västeråsband kan få pris på världsgala" has no link to it and it's in Swedish, so I can't evaluate. Hopefully by the end of this relisting period @Julle can add some more Swedish sources and do some kind of source analysis so that other editors can evaluate whether those sources establish notability. If that doesn't happen, given that Julle thinks that the band might plausibly be notable, I'd be okay with draftify-ing this. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not had time to dig further into this (too much to do given the upcoming holidays, unfortunately).
 * The article I've added is a one-page newspaper article from Vestmanlands Läns Tidning about the band when they were nominated to the award mentioned in the article. While I think the coverage is relevant for our assessment, I don't know much about the award itself.
 * In short, I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. /Julle (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Julle. Since you don't have time to dig through sources, unless someone else does, my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per improvements I think the article meets WP:GNG. Good work. also just because the original sources were in Swedish, it does not equal non notable or less important. English sources are good now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I wasn't implying that Swedish sources couldn't be used. I was just stating that I couldn't evaluate that particular source since I don't speak Swedish and don't know how to find it. That said, I still don't think that the current sources provide SIGCOV per my analysis above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep on the basis of WP:AGF as an editor in good standing has added several reliable sources news articles dedicated to the band that are not accessible on the internet and states that there are many more, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Julle has only added one offline source, and said that there might be more, but that he hasn't had time to look through them: I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add that "there must be sources" is not an acceptable conclusion to an AfD discussion. With this AfD still sitting here for going on the three weeks, I'm assuming good faith but I'm also suspicious about whether those apparent sources will really come together. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. They've played gigs for a few decades, so a lot of the newspaper hits are brief mentions of festival appearances or concerts. Some are reviews (examples: "Ett koncept som håller", Mindy Lara in Borås Tidning, 2 October 2006 (400 words); "En stroke kan inte stoppa en riktig fest", Stefan Nordvall in Sundsvalls Tidning, 15 February 2016; "Rockabilly på riktigt i Hultsfred", Dennis Andersson in Barometern, 5 July in 2010). In addition to what I had added before, I think the most relevant piece is the 1800 words article "The Go Getters hyllar en saknad bandkollega" (2012), which I've included in the article. /Julle (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My !vote is now keep per sources found and added by . voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements to article. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.