This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
I have a few references readily available to indicate notability, two of which are from Rolling Stone. Over the next few days, I intend on touching up this article with some additional content and sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69, I remember being on the fence about accepting and I'm fairly new to AfC reviews so I trust your judgement more than my own. If Dobbyelf62 isn't able to find more more sources, I'm down to delete it. Sorry about that! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good news: I was successful in finding more sources, so let me know if this is sufficient. If not, I might be able to dredge up a few more sources to further improve the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No need to apologize, Crunchydillpickle — we're all learning here! I think it's great that you're willing to accept some drafts that are in a borderline area; as you can see, it helps get more eyes on the article, which hopefully results in a more polished product through collaboration. Dobbyelf62, thanks a lot for your work so far! The sources you've added are definitely an improvement. I just want to note for information that interviews, as primary sources, can't be considered when demonstrating the subject's notability. However, between the Daily Telegraph article and the Definitive History book, I think that's just enough to pass the general notability guideline in this case. I'm going to go ahead and remove the {{Notability}} tag and mark the article as reviewed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
