Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass (English 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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass (English band)

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

Haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable; e.g. the band hasn't been covered in several notable publications. There is mention of their album Labour of Love "climbing the indie charts" in a magazine, Hi-Fi News & Record Review, but I hardly think that's enough. Lachlan Foley 12:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps other groups that the members have formed may be notable, but it doesn't seem that this particular musical group is. WP:NBAND Ducknish (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band members were in a notable band prior to this one and notable bands after, so an article on this band is valid. The band recorded a session for John Peel's BBC Radio 1 show, their album (on one of the major indie labels of the era) was a top 20 hit on the UK Independent Chart, and I have three books that give the band some coverage, and found another on Google Books. This band split into two other notable bands and as such is important in understanding the history of both of those bands. Had it been one notable band afterwards we could perhaps have covered this there, but the only alternatives to keeping this article are to duplicate the information in both, or omit any details of the band, neither of which would be good for our readers, and the coverage and success that the band had back in the early 1980s makes this a suitable subject for an article anyway. --Michig (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add those sources in? As it stands, there is little evidence of the band's notability except with relation to other groups, and notability is not inherited. If details are relevant to either band, they belong in that particular article, not in their own. Ducknish (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add them when I have time. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appallingly notable band members and successor bands (plural) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources now included in the article demonstrate notability. — sparklism ^hey! 10:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, again Gary Asquith + Mass etc. How many of these AfDs are there? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (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.