Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manfreds

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manfreds

The Manfreds (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)

Nothing to show any notability as per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The band contains 6 notable members and is effectively a continuation of Manfred Mann. The suggestion that there's 'nothing to show any notability' is baffling. A cursory Google search for this version of the band finds plenty of coverage. At worst it should be merged to the Manfred Mann article. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there on Google, because there's nothing of the sort in the article and having notable members does not make a band notable per se.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. That's a question you're supposed to ask

before bringing an article to AfD. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

See also: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I asked that question before nomination. If you read WP:NBAND, those are just the sort of references which do NOT prove notability ie routine reports of coming performances. That a band has appeared in Skegness or rural Somerset hardly makes them notable nor do references from the tabloid Daily Mirror and The Star. There is nothing here which aids any further the passing of WP:NBAND.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage there in reliable sources. This is a continuation of one of the biggest British bands of the 1960s, containing several individually notable members. Does common sense not suggest that this is a notable band? They do satisfy WP:NBAND by the way, whatever you say. --Michig (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is routine gig coverage. The presence of notable people does not confer notability on a band. Which particular clause of WP:NBAND do they satisfy?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 and 6 for starters. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself here. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They fail criteria one simple because everything shown is routine reports on performances. If a gig in Lincolnshire is all that is need to prove notability, the bar is set very low. They fail criteria six because, as I have stated above, you cannot confer notability on a band simple because the band had notable members. That is the kind of circular action criteria six warns against.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, but if your argument is based on a misreading of the notability guideline and misrepresentation of the available sources, I would expect it to be given little weight. --Michig (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for allowing me an opinion! I would reply by saying I believe I am correctly interpreting the notability criteria and applying common sense. The article is very poor (one external link to the bands own site!), there is nothing other than routine gig coverage, they have had zero hits, zero major awards, zero chart albums but they do contain some folk who were once in a notable band!! They are little more than a tribute act. Hanging on to an article of this quality does an encyclopaedia no credit and you know it.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just getting more ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to comment on the article and not on me and to remember

WP:CIVIL. Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh dear. --Michig (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect, but not delete. This is more or less the same as these guys: [16] . Assessing merits of such articles is precisely why criteria guidelines include the term “may be notable”. It establishes that notability debates are not meant to be an inflexible, rote listing of criteria; it leaves the door open for common sense. Of course this is a notable subject, per Michig. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This band is no different from other spin-offs such as

UB40 Reunited. They are footnotes to the original bands with no individual notability other than containing notable band members from the original and notable band. Appearing at seaside pavilions and singing songs as a tribute act [17] does not merit a separate article.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep or merge It's verifiable but would it be better as part of the Manfred Mann article? Allmusic has separate entries but the Encyclopedia of Popular Music combines them. Peter James (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (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.