Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Leap Forward (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. — The Earwig ^talk 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Leap Forward (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)

Doesn't seem notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone noticed me on my talk page about this band, that's the first time I have heard about them. He asked me about the exact name of this band, and asked me about their notability. I answered that they don't seem notable and an Afd should be started, which wasn't started, so I started it, here we go. Article about an unnotable band which was created by the band themselves. Only aspects of notability might be the fact that the founder was a part of a previous notable band (Big Flame), and they have released albums on a label which seems notable (although, to be fair, I have never heard about this band, Big Flame or the record label before, but that's just me). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was in two minds about whether this one was notable or not and noticed it was being heavily edited by TGLForward so left it for a while to see if they were going to add sources to show notability but then I admit that I just completely forgot to check. After searching myself and reviewing the newly added sources, I still feel that this does not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. They do not appear to have charted at any significant level nor gained sufficient media coverage nor won or been nominated for any significant awards. Spiderone 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - happy to be proved wrong here; easily meets WP:GNG with the coverage from an array of sources, which were the biggest music sources at the time Spiderone 22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The predecessor band Big Flame got a little notice, but this project (except for one gig announcement already cited) is only visible in the usual streaming/retail sites and its own self-created sites. The name of the article's main editor raises suspicions of an attempted promotion too. Also, this project did itself no favors by using two names during its existence, both with and without "The". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my newer comment below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very least merge to a section in Big Flame (band). Although there isn't much online, I'm confident that print coverage exists from the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I've found two NME issues that have articles on the band - I don't have these (yet) but these are examples of coverage that exists. --Michig (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am the guy who has been updating the page for " The Great Leap Forward (band)" - rationale being that the information is out of date and / or is missing, as this band has been active since previous article edits.

The article "Great Leap Forward (band)" (which I didn't start) has been up on Wiki since 2008ish, with no problems, queries, or referrals from yourselves. "Great Leap Forward (band)" and "The Great Leap Forward (band)" are one and the same. As part of an information update, and in my ignorance of your procedures, I tried to rectify this original name error by creating a new page and redirecting, which I see that you then kindly did anyway - apologies for any self-caused problems there.

I have since uploaded new information (for both this article and related others), and I appreciate that your criteria kicks in in order to monitor this. However, I am now clearly worried that you are about to delete the article when all I wanted to do was to bring it up to date, and as mentioned above, the article has been in existence since 2008 without being deemed "un-notable", so what is so different now that you are considering deleting it?

And may I humbly point out that if you do delete, then there many many other bands on Wiki who also fall into your "no evidence of notability" category, but still have articles.

Regarding evidence/references: I note Spiderone "couldn't find anything reliable, just the standard junk..". Not really sure what "standard junk" means, and wondering how how much you use that phrase to determine whether a band is notable or not. Also I suppose it depends on your in-depth knowledge of the British independent music scene, mostly in the 1980's I admit, which, going on GhostDestroyer100's age, I can appreciate may not be his priority.

So what I can do is provide you with references from reviews and interviews over time about this band from British and European music media such as NME, Sounds etc., and as this band has a new album out later this year then I expect there to be further references available.

In summary, I only wished to update an article that has been living quite happily on Wiki for over 12 years. If I went about this is in the wrong manner, then I can only apologise. Please advise what steps I need to take to avoid this page being deleted.

Thanks for your consideration --TGLForward (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)TGLForward[reply]

@TGLForward: I have answered you on my talk page. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that Manic Street Preachers see The Great Leap Forward (and the linked band Big Flame) as notable - here is an article where they name their favourite bands:

File:I have uploaded this NME interview as an example.

WhiteRose88 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Hello again

I have taken your advice and changed my user name from TGLForward to WhiteRose88.

Ghostdestroyer100 requested more references for this band, which Michig seems to have found some. Here are some more from pre-internet days, with photographic evidence of all available should you require:

New Musical Express (NME:

12.12.87 gig review (David Swift)
gig review date tbc (Stephen Dalton)
02.01.88 - “1988 –Fast Forward” – NME list of up and coming bands for 1988
23.01.88 - band interview (DAvid Swift)
07.05.88 – gig review (with That Petrol Emotion)
02.07.88 - Single EP review (James Brown)
15.04.89 - Album review (Simon Williams)
29.04.89 - band interview (Stuart Maconie)
May 1989 - LP Chart/Turn Ons / Select (NME guide to the month’s essential albums and charts position)

Melody Maker:

15.07.89 - gig review (Paul Lester)
17.04.89 - Hacienda gig review (Ian Gittins)
08.04.89 - album review (Everett True)
13.05.89 - band interview (Ian Gittins)

Sounds:

01.04.89 - Album review (John Robb)
13.05.89 - gig review (Keith Cameron)
29.05.89 - band interview (John Robb)

Other:

The Guardian “Hit List” top ten albums 21.04.89
Offbeat magazine album review 08.05.89 (Jerry McGuinness) / in “Vital Vinyl” list of “essential albums” / band interview (Mike Noon)
Manchester City Life: band interview/album review
Manchester Evening News: band interview
Up Town (Manchester): band interview / album review
Cut magazine album review 04.05.89
Record Mirror live review 19.12.87

Here are some further links – I know not all hit your criteria for notability, but just showing you that this band has some history and continuity over the years even though you may not have heard of it:

Thanks for your consideration ex TGLForward WhiteRose88 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

@WhiteRose88: Hi! Thanks for the new sources and the name change! These look great, especially the major magazine coverages. The other sources look fine too, except the blogspot ones and lastfm, which are not reliable (though they are good for the "external links" section). By the way, write at the bottom of the page, that's where new messages should be! (Sorry for not mentioning that earlier.) I will still wait for new opinions, though. Thanks for the sources, again! Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteRose88: I posted your comment and the sources at the bottom of the page. Don't worry, I did not delete it or anything. Just scroll down and you will see it. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted above to delete due to weak sources, but my search seems to have been complicated by the fact that the band's name is the same as a historical event. The sources proposed here by TGLForward are mostly useful, though some are more about the band's leader than the band itself. In any case, if that person is willing to enhance the article then it should be keep-able. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all
Just to clarify Doomsdayer's comment that the interview sources focus on the band's leader rather than the band itself - this is because this is effectively a one-man band: the main man writes and records all the songs and instruments himself. Other musicians are drafted in to enable the 'band' to play live.
If you guys do choose to keep, having learnt a valuable lesson by going through this deletion process I will certainly ensure that the article is enhanced by referencing only notable/reliable sources, and then either removing non-reliable sources or moving some of them to the "external links" section as GhostDestroyer100 suggests.
Thanks again for your consideration. WhiteRose88 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some more analysis of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
5 users have contributed to this deletion discussion - 3 initially wanted to delete and 2 to keep.
However, since I provided a list of sources, those 3 wanting to delete have - as I understand it - now deemed those sources as notable and have changed their opinion to keep, so that all 5 users now say keep.

I now see that this discussion has been "relisted", and that "some more analysis of the sources presented" is needed.
To that end, please find some more of these pre-internet press articles uploaded below.
When you analyse them, you'll find that they have the name of the magazine and date of article included in the imagery (although some of the smaller snippets may not).
Hope this helps
Thanks WhiteRose88 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)White Rose88[reply]

OK I am now in some sort of catch 22 situation here!
I'm trying my best to get all this right so that you guys can come to a decision.
Yesterday I uploaded imagery of the sources for more analysis as outlined above when this discussion was put in re-list. This morning I find that the imagery has been removed by user:herbythyme as that violates Wiki Commons policy.

So I could really do with some help: how can I provide pre-internet source evidence (which I have as jpgs) to you without that evidence being removed due to policy violation?
Thanks --WhiteRose88 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the article and cited some of the available coverage. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied, and I don't think there's any need for this dicussion to carry on any longer since consensus to keep is already clear. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 23 January 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.