Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigwig (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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigwig (band)

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

Quite questionably notable and improvable as I found no better sourcing than this and although the albums have some reviews, I'm questioning their solidity. Note this has existed since March 2006 with no much better change and improvement. Pinging Koala15, Paul Erik, Σ, Fayenatic london, Missvain, Stephenb and Dominic. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I googled bigwig punk and there is just enough to confirm notability; I've added the official website and 3 citations. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No real opinion. In 2006 - repeat 2006! - I nominated the article for speedy deletion (apparently) when it appeared little more than a vanity stub. No idea whether they have 'made it big' since then, but Fayenatic's changes have improved the article, I guess! Stephenb (Talk) 10:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also coverage from Rock Sound, Allmusic, Georgia Straight, Exclaim!. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As noted above, the subject has sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - of the above 6 references, the first citation added to the article is a bio on a site, which are usually provided by the artists themselves. The second is an interview on a fansite. The third is a nice review, so that goes to notability. Rocksounnd looks like a promo piece from the band, and it's not a reliable source. The Georgia Straight piece, while nice, is an interview, and therefore a primary source, which per guidelines shouldn't be used for notability. I can't open the last two citations (due to the filters of where I'm at at the moment), but based on the first four, I'm not holding out hope that they'll help show the band's notability. I'll check back tonight, and if the AfD is still open, will offer an opinion on those last two sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Sound is a well-known professional print magazine - what makes you think it's not a reliable source? Which one do think is a bio provided by the artists themselves? --Michig (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website version of Rock Sound doesn't clearly state what their editorial controls, if any, are. The brief mention on the site reads like a promo directly from the band's pr person. The Allmusic a standard listing. Oh, and the punknews item is clearly a self-promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 10 November 2015 (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.