Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ga Ga's

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ga Ga's[edit]

[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)

I feel like on the surface this meets GNG, but none of the BBC sources were archived so I can't verify them, and at least one is apparently an interview. Given the age in which they were active, I'm not able to find much of anything online. I'm not sure Gleeson being a sub, live-only guitar for Feeder is enough for music either. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If verifiable (I've not looked) then it might make sense to merge with Slaves to Gravity, which was basically a continuation of this band? Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They released an album and got some gigs, but I can find no in-depth or significant media coverage. They are only visible in typical streaming/retail services and unreliable genre directories. Also, I disagree with a merge to Slaves to Gravity as suggested above, because they are two different bands with some members in common, and there's not much to merge anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Changing my vote from above due to the Wayback Machine sources found by the next voter. Still a little skeptical on whether those add up to significant coverage, but the band was indeed noticed by BBC a few times back in the day. The article needs to be cleaned up accordingly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC sources in the article are available on the Internet Archive ([1] [2]). Admittedly these aren't much use – one is a fragmentary summary of an unarchived audio interview, the other is a gig review. But I found a couple more BBC sources that go into more detail ([3] [4]); with these, and the sources already in the article (eg. [5] [6]), I think there's enough coverage to sustain notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is one week at number 71 on the Official UK Singles chart enough for notability these days? Piecesofuk (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per provided GNG-compliant sourcing pointed out by Sojourner. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BBC links that will be enough to passing notability criteria.Fabiobengario (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2022 (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.