Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Pride and the Pimptones (2nd nomination)

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 01:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pride and the Pimptones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Renominating after the first debate was closed due to nobody participating after three relists. This is a non-notable, local level band with no claim to meeting WP:BAND. They've had sparse coverage in the press of their local area. The sourcing of the article is to sources like Amazon, Bandcamp and their indie record label. Given the lack of quorum last time, comment would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There appear to be album reviews sufficient to meet the base notability guideline for musicians per articles like: http://www.hhv-mag.com/de/review/8677/nick-pride-and-the-pimptones-go-deep and http://www.hhv-mag.com/de/review/6017/nick-pride-the-pimptones-rejuiced-phat-shake . Someone with a better grasp of German may disagree? BoyRD (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree with the last poster they have been reviewed internationally, many of the references are international so they are more than a local band, pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very little coverage found in reliable sources, and what I did find is brief. There's barely any reliable independent sourcing in the article and the sources there seem to represent what's out there. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2016 (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.