Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ski Patrol (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Patrol (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's all written like an ad and I cannot find much notable coverage. Also, under 1000 results come up on Google for them -- unlikely there're many sources anyone's missing (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ski+Patrol%22+%22Ian+Lowery%22), DemonDays64 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is probably a copy of the bio at a fansite. Singer Ian Lowery has some media coverage and has been in other bands that got some notice, but Ski Patrol is only ever mentioned very briefly as one of his obscure early endeavors. It looks like they were once name-dropped by John Peel, but otherwise the band achieved little notice as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage to justify an article. Ian Lowery is undoubtedly individually notable, and to delete an article on a band which was his focus for 3 or 4 years of his career between two other notable bands (The Wall and The Folk Devils) just seems daft. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of a number of references adding up to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reliable book coverage that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above suggested. Cuoxo (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable coverage in several books and other reliable sources, and clearly influential in their own scene of their time. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. JSFarman (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.