Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Snapdragons (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Snapdragons
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article: over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Two albums on Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is nothing in the Encyclopaedia of Popular Music (volume vii) by Colin Larkin ISBN 1561592374. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more. Dsp13 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doomsdayer and Michig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "keep", but challenged someone who says that there is "plenty of press" to actually deliver it. Still waiting. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The coverage will be in print sources and I'm not able to get to anywhere that has archives of print sources at the moment. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to fail WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A bunch of references from the same niche magazine are not independent from one another, and the passing mention in The Times does not appear to be significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced and fails WP:NBAND. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't unsourced. Did you even look at the article? --Michig (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Michig. I agree more sources, e.g the UK music press, likely exist, and the ones that are reffed aren't so bad, Simon Reynolds, for example. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes WP:GNG on available evidence as per WP:AGF in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 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.