Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seal Cub Clubbing Club

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. A number of sources were unearthed which showed some demonstration that WP:BAND was met through the GNG, although I believe this is still a borderline case. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Seal Cub Clubbing Club

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND and tagged for notability for over two years. Coverage is almost all self-published, and even their own website is dead. Some gigs and some releases, but not on major labels. Minor radio play alleged, but not enough to make them notable. No notable members. Rodhull andemu 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Christina Silverman (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable via sufficient coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Gigwise.com: [1], [2], City Life: [3], London Tourdates: [4], Liverpool Daily Post: [5], [6], Click Liverpool: [7], Drowned in Sound: [8], [9], Glasswerk: [10], strangeglue: [11], BBC: [12], musicOMH: [13], dailymusicguide: [14].--Michig (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Q: What do a walrus and Tupperware have in common? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. OTOH, why is the above a valid !vote to keep? Rodhull andemu 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. They've had some minor coverage, but seem to be a band that verged on success some time ago, and never realised it. The fact that the introduction qualifies their notability by "frequent comparisons" to two far more notable bands suggests to me that there's little in the way of correct assertion of notability. Furthermore, 3,000 listeners on Last.fm does not come across as a lot for a band around for such a significant period of time. Esteffect (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Michig demonstrates above that the band meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with non-trivial coverage in a variety of sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some more coverage adding to Michig's, mostly on the trivial side but added up becomes something. Brown, Chris (13 January 2006), "The Seal Cub Clubbing Club ep review", Daily Post (Liverpool); Key, Philip (27 March 2008), "Tongue twisting band's city gigs", Daily Post (Liverpool); Fulton, Rick (11 April 2008), "May review", Scottish Daily Record; and "Made Of Magic review", Huddersfield Examiner, 29 March 2010 which includes the quote "give me a club and I'd happily do to them what they would do to a seal cub". duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (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.