Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) (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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabba (band)

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

Looked at last AfD and the "sources" don't meet today's standards for notability. AllMusic entry is simply a track listing. impactpress.com review is not a professional review. In short, it doesn't seem to contain any RSes and a Google search is hampered by the common term for the dance form. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Never mind two bad sources, what about the substantial article from Mojo and other coverage from CMJ, Melody Maker, etc. and the BBC radio appearances that were identified in the first AfD, and other coverage (e.g. SPIN, Heraldo, Soitu) that wasn't? --Michig (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*Indeed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantive reference from Mojo, and others - http://web.archive.org/web/20010619075359/http://www.gabba.co.uk/temp/MOJO.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 October 2013
Keep. Meets WP:BAND through independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. — sparklism ^hey! 07:20, 3 October 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.