Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey and the Wallbangers

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. So Why 13:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey and the Wallbangers[edit]

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

Article about a band, who have valid potential notability claims (touring, a six-episode radio variety show) but aren't reliably sourcing them to media coverage: apart from a couple of directory entries, this is otherwise referenced entirely to their self-published album liner notes and tour posters. WP:NMUSIC, however, requires reliable source coverage: touring is not a notability claim if the sourcing for it is the tour posters or routine concert listings, but requires editorial content to have been written by media outlets about the tour; radio programs are not a notability claim until media have written about the show, and on and so forth. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this is not the sourcing that it takes to make any of this suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band were active in the 1980's, prior to the internet era, and therefore there is little, easy available, recorded details about the activities of the band during that time. Information has been obtained in the article from independent sources such as media listings & television program listings. Bearcat points out that these are not necessarily a definitive point for accuracy, but to ensure that mistakes have not been made, all of the recorded information has been checked in interviews with some of the original band members to ensure its validity. Wikipedia is a global sharing space for information and it is important, as a historical reference for the future, that such details are not lost forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel654 (talk • contribs)

— Nigel654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be web-accessible — if they actually got real newspaper and magazine coverage in the 1980s, then you can use that for sourcing regardless of whether it's possible to link to a convenience copy on a website or not. But what we do have is a requirement that the references represent reliable source media coverage and not just a band's own album liner notes and tour posters — so if they got real media coverage, you have to show it. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be about "everything"; it is our responsibility to maintain and publish articles about things that satisfy our notability and sourcing standards, and not to help preserve the details of things that don't satisfy our notability and sourcing standards. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - There a lot of books that at least mention the band, and some seem to go into a little depth. The sheer number of books (25+) suggest that they may be notable, but I have not investigated any further than a Google search.- Mr X 02:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue keep under WP:BAND #6 since Christopher Purves is notable and Harvey Brough is also probably notable[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] despite not yet having an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No NMUSIC criterion confers an exemption from the article having to be reliably sourced — it's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that passes NMUSIC, but the depth and quality of the reliable sourcing that can be shown to properly support the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To also discuss whether the article could be redirected/merged to the notable member's article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this sounds less like a plea for deletion than a plea for the article to have some reliable sources attached to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorbee (talk • contribs)
Keep. There's quite a bit in GBooks - not surprising since they were a familiar act on prime time British TV in the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at time of nomination, article was very poorly sourced and written in a rather advertisement-like style, and further work is needed - and despite what some people think, AfD is not the best way to improve an article. But just looking at the Times archive I found some press including a 1986 live review and several other mentions. Archive searches of other British newspapers should provide further opportunities for sourcing. Their 1987 album with Simon Rattle and the London Sinfonietta attracted some reviews too (jazz and classical reviews seem to stick around online longer than pop/rock). My research also indicates that the group has 2 notable members, Brough and Purves, meeting WP:NBAND #6; many of the sources on these men also discuss the Wallbangers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2017 (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.