Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Beats

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. And a week one (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beats (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)

Promotional tone, very poorly sourced, social media ELs etc. I can't tell if he's notable from this Jimfbleak (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm sympathetic to the problems in RS coverage for bands in the 2010s - the Internet took out the music press when it took out the record industry, which as a former music journalist I think is good for humanity but bad when you're looking for RS coverage for Wikipedia - but this is almost entirely unsourced and won't survive as it stands. I'm holding off from saying "delete" because the Earmilk minor RS looks promising, and is about a US tour which implies there's people who would care and look them up in WP. But is there anything else actually about the band in third-party sources above blog level? - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? There's far more coverage of 2010s popular music available online that there is for just about any other topic, especially anything in any field that was popular before 1990. We should make allowances for WP:FUTON bias, but this the field that suffers from it least of all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Really - it's overwhelmingly in blogs these days - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: tough one... I think there is very likely an article or two on them in Mixmag, the UK's leading dance music magazine, but as they put very little of their content online, it would mean searching through all the print copies, and I don't have access to them. DJ Plus One is certainly notable and his fame within dance circles before the duo was formed will almost certainly have been enough to get the attention of dance journalists to write about the group. The fact they have mixed a fabric.live album would make my vote lean towards "keep" - Fabric is (at least until this Tuesday's coming hearing) one of the world's leading nightclubs, and they don't choose non-entities to mix their albums. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Probably sufficiently prominent to be included, they had a minor Billboard chart placing ([1]), and there's some RS coverage around, e.g. [2], [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Michig and other brief coverage such as this in Fact. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 13 September 2016 (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.