Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steveless

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 delete‎. Essentially, the final (and earlier) views to delete the article were not sufficiently challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steveless

[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)

Fails WP:NBAND from what I can tell, while there is some coverage it's just mentions of them being one of John Peel's favorite bands. Funny name and concept though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Radio. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I think it could be something, especially if it had airtime on BBC Radio 1. Regardless of the outcome, can we give credit for this line: ".... the band still managed to stay bereft of Steves." Classic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes. Great line. The John Peel quote is verifiable, but I can't see anything else that raises this to notability. They don't appear to pass under any of the WP:NBAND criteria. Draftify is just backdoor deletion in this case. If there were a redirect target that might be a better WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When calling to draftify, you have consider who would improve the article in that system. Nobody has actively worked on the Steveless article since 2009, and even then those folks seemed to be involved in basic cleanup. Who would rise to the task after draftifying? The article would probably just take up space in the Draft system and get deleted from there anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Surely there's some coverage from the music weeklies, although it is likely to be unavailable online. The best I found online is [1] (BBC) and The Peel Sessions by Ken Garner. --Michig (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Quietus [2] is listed as a RS per Project Album [3]. The Skinny is also listed as a RS there, [4] Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This brief note on a BBC site [5] and [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in The Skinny is passing. This is it:
Cherryade Records was founded in Lancaster in 2005 by Rachel Neiman, then a student radio DJ on Bailrigg FM. Inspired by a trip to the Norwich Pop Underground Convention and her love of the eclectic tastes of John Peel, and driven by a desire to make her favourite unsigned bands heard, the label's first release was Popular Music in Theory, by Bristol-based DIY outfit (and Peel favourites) Steveless.
The mention in Quietus is 2 paragraphs on something else, and this first paragraph is pertinent:
Steveless was mostly a guy called Dan Newman, his baby really. He sent in some solo things to John Peel, who championed him right up till he died. It was just four-track improv things of him playing guitar and kick drum and yelling, I think.
This also looks like passing mention to me and shows that, outside of John Peel championing them, Steveless was not really notable.

We are looking at NBAND criterion 1:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The BBC link is trivial coverage too. We do not have multiple, non-trivial published works. What we appear to have is a band whose only claim to notability is that they were promoted by John Peel. I cannot see how this is a keep, but I would still prefer an ATD over straight delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This probably doesn't help with consensus, but I don't think this band rose above trivial coverage (the opposite of WP:SIGCOV) even with the John Peel connection. The voters above valiantly dug up some sources, and while they might be from reliable publications like BBC and Quietus, they still only mention this band briefly and they also tend to be about the wider career of the lead non-Steve guy. Also, if this article happens to survive this process, it needs to be cleaned up severely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my comments above. I looked at the John Peel page as a possible WP:ATD but I don't think this will work. I cannot see where this could go, and it is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2023 (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.