Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulscraper

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. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band, and cannot verify the Rolling Stone article or the entry in Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. Gongshow talk 00:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:N. The details about Soulscraper in McFarlane are found in the iNsuRge entry link. Whist they are on the trivial side here McFarlane's Encyclopedia is properly researched. A large list of his source material can be found in the Encyclopedia and it is from these sources that McFarlane would have compiled his entry. It is safe to presume that Soulscraper is covered in the reliable sources used. They did receive coverage in Beat Magazine and/or inpress (McFarlane used both) but I don’t know how well archived those publications are. The Rolling Stone (Australia) article can be verified by reading issue number 483, dated May 1993. The Rolling Stone article was quoted in a book which I believe was Sound Tracks: Popular Music, Identity, and Place By John Connell, Chris Gibson [1]. I can't see the page in question due to google books restrictions, perhaps someone else can. If that's the right book then it also verifies the Rolling Stone article. It doesn't help that they were around in 91-93 from when online coverage is scarce. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme - David Gerard (talk)
Keep per duffbeerforme – shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks for all your hard work on this and for changing my mind. Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (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.