Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) (3rd 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabba (band)

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

A tribute band, article padded out with self-references and trivial passing mentions, no actual evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As at previous AfDs, Mojo and the BBC have covered them. [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the article didn't look like someone's garage band, with references normally seen for three kids in a classroom. That's why it keeps getting nominated: people want the article, but nobody gives enough of a shit to fix it up. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shows up in a news search from 3 newspapers over 3 years, if all the coverage was a single source or single time I'd say delete and the article could use work but it has made a mark on society. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 6 April 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.