Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Leap Forward (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 keep. —  The Earwig   talk 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Great Leap Forward (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone noticed me on my talk page about this band, that's the first time I have heard about them. He asked me about the exact name of this band, and asked me about their notability. I answered that they don't seem notable and an Afd should be started, which wasn't started, so I started it, here we go. Article about an unnotable band which was created by the band themselves. Only aspects of notability might be the fact that the founder was a part of a previous notable band (Big Flame), and they have released albums on a label which seems notable (although, to be fair, I have never heard about this band, Big Flame or the record label before, but that's just me). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was in two minds about whether this one was notable or not and noticed it was being heavily edited by TGLForward so left it for a while to see if they were going to add sources to show notability but then I admit that I just completely forgot to check. After searching myself and reviewing the newly added sources, I still feel that this does not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. They do not appear to have charted at any significant level nor gained sufficient media coverage nor won or been nominated for any significant awards. Spiderone  11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - happy to be proved wrong here; easily meets WP:GNG with the coverage from an array of sources, which were the biggest music sources at the time Spiderone  22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - The predecessor band Big Flame got a little notice, but this project (except for one gig announcement already cited) is only visible in the usual streaming/retail sites and its own self-created sites. The name of the article's main editor raises suspicions of an attempted promotion too. Also, this project did itself no favors by using two names during its existence, both with and without "The". ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See my newer comment below. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep or at the very least merge to a section in Big Flame (band). Although there isn't much online, I'm confident that print coverage exists from the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I've found two NME issues that have articles on the band - I don't have these (yet) but these are examples of coverage that exists. --Michig (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello

I am the guy who has been updating the page for " The Great Leap Forward (band)" - rationale being that the information is out of date and / or is missing, as this band has been active since previous article edits.

The article "Great Leap Forward (band)" (which I didn't start) has been up on Wiki since 2008ish, with no problems, queries, or referrals from yourselves. "Great Leap Forward (band)" and "The Great Leap Forward (band)" are one and the same. As part of an information update, and in my ignorance of your procedures, I tried to rectify this original name error by creating a new page and redirecting, which I see that you then kindly did anyway - apologies for any self-caused problems there.

I have since uploaded new information (for both this article and related others), and I appreciate that your criteria kicks in in order to monitor this. However, I am now clearly worried that you are about to delete the article when all I wanted to do was to bring it up to date, and as mentioned above, the article has been in existence since 2008 without being deemed "un-notable", so what is so different now that you are considering deleting it?

And may I humbly point out that if you do delete, then there many many other bands on Wiki who also fall into your "no evidence of notability" category, but still have articles.

Regarding evidence/references: I note Spiderone "couldn't find anything reliable, just the standard junk..". Not really sure what "standard junk" means, and wondering how how much you use that phrase to determine whether a band is notable or not. Also I suppose it depends on your in-depth knowledge of the British independent music scene, mostly in the 1980's I admit, which, going on GhostDestroyer100's age, I can appreciate may not be his priority.

So what I can do is provide you with references from reviews and interviews over time about this band from British and European music media such as NME, Sounds etc., and as this band has a new album out later this year then I expect there to be further references available.

In summary, I only wished to update an article that has been living quite happily on Wiki for over 12 years. If I went about this is in the wrong manner, then I can only apologise. Please advise what steps I need to take to avoid this page being deleted.

Thanks for your consideration --TGLForward (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)TGLForward

I have answered you on my talk page. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that Manic Street Preachers see The Great Leap Forward (and the linked band Big Flame) as notable - here is an article where they name their favourite bands:

OK I am now in some sort of catch 22 situation here! I'm trying my best to get all this right so that you guys can come to a decision. Yesterday I uploaded imagery of the sources for more analysis as outlined above when this discussion was put in re-list. This morning I find that the imagery has been removed by user:herbythyme as that violates Wiki Commons policy.

So I could really do with some help: how can I provide pre-internet source evidence (which I have as jpgs) to you without that evidence being removed due to policy violation? Thanks --WhiteRose88 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88
 * Comment. I've expanded the article and cited some of the available coverage. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied, and I don't think there's any need for this dicussion to carry on any longer since consensus to keep is already clear. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 23 January 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.