Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Martini Henry Rifles

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Thank you very much for the source analysis. This is being closed with a note that this article still needs work done to meet Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Martini Henry Rifles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet

WP:NBAND. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Sourcing is just not available. The BBC account of their signing is significant, but it is alone. The other references (now removed) were simply a link to a streaming service and what appears to have been a self published source (private registartion [1]) that hosted only a review of this band and som album that may have beein called "Semi finalists" and nothing else,[2] but in any case was misconfigured for all archive runs, and no archives of the text exist. The article says they prepared to release a second alnum in 2006 but there is nothing about a release. I can only find one album release [3] plus singles. I don't see any evidence the second album was ever completed. In any case, release of the album was not on a major label. I looked carefully at
WP:NBAND under all criteria, but they don't meet any nor GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I've added additional sourcing from newspaper reviews which I believe now meet the first criteria of
WP:NBAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so editors can assess additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have looked at the sources and agree they support NBAND#1. The article is very original-researchy, and should probably to be cut back to something closer to a stub unless citations can be found. Oblivy (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for finding some sources. At least 2 reviews by actual publications is satisfactory so I’ll withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy would you be willing to reconsider this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per
WP:HEY
and in support of the withdrawal of nom. I have looked at the additional sources, and produced this table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Drowned in Sound	Drowned in Sound was a British webzine with a freelance writing team. No indication of paid for content	DIS did not pay its writers and this affects editorial standards but it is generally reliable	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail but the piece is very brief.	✔ Yes
Western Telegraph	Often this kind of coverage is based on a press release or copy supplied by the band. However, it reads like an independent review, so will give benefit of the doubt	The Western Telegraph is a Carmarthanshire regional paper.	~ A short review of a CD release in a regional paper of a local band does not indicate significance	~ Partial
Manchester Evening News	Another regional paper but this time about a concert away from the band's home.	Regional coverage	The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail. It is primary inasmuch as it just reports a concert took place, and nothing significant rises above the primary sourcing.	✘ No
Uncut		At least I am pretty sure they are. Didn't bother to check as it fails on significance	"Good news for fans of no tunes" and one star. Bad reviews can still be significant but this one is just a paragraph long.	✘ No
BBC Wales	It's the BBC	BBC Wales is Welsh regional BBC coverage	This is the best source in my opinion. Something to write the article from. Coverage of what the BBC saw as a possible up and coming band. It has a regional focus though, and this coverage does not preclude them being a one hit wonder.	✔ Yes
South Wales Argus	Usual issues with regional coverage but again, benefit of the doubt given	Regional coverage only	It is a significant review. The regional focus in the band's home region needs to be noted.	✔ Yes
Broadcase Now			This is a primary source that reports a successful complaint that the BBC should not have played one of their songs as it was offensive. Primary sources do not count towards notability and the coverage is, in any case, brief	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That appears to show there is sufficient significant coverage to warrant the article. I retain strong reservations. All of the coverage is regional in one way or another - even the BBC coverage is BBC Wales, although Wales as a region is also Wales as a nation so I'll give that one an unequivocal pass. The other coverage could all be picked at. The band signed a deal with a record label (not a major label) and only had one release plus a few singles on it. Nothing more will be forthcoming. If this scrapes across the line, it is just barely. Do we really think a band with one album and only regional coverage is notable? But HEY. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy Thanks for the work you've put in to analysing these sources. The table above is helpful feedback that I can think about in my future editing :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2024 (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.