Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Bailey Skiffle Group

:{{la|Bill Bailey Skiffle Group}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Bailey_Skiffle_Group Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Bill Bailey Skiffle Group}})

I debated whether or not to nominate this as it seems to have indeed existed and may have been known at the time but it may have succumbed to time and being before the Internet, archived sources offline. My searches found nothing particularly aside from [https://www.google.com/search?q=Bill+Bailey+Skiffle+Group+British+jazz&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 here] and [http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=Bill+Bailey+Skiffle+Group here] (both contain a New Statesman article about what seems to be the author talking about starting this Wikipedia entry, [http://www.newstatesman.com/node/154306 this] is the original link written by Becky Hogge briefly mentioning this group) and [https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Bill+Bailey+Skiffle+Group+British+jazz&start=20 here] (browser, where I found [http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/were-you-part-hi-fi-4233908 this] particularly interesting note). This would've also been a good one to move elsewhere as an orphan, I'm not seeing anything and, unfortunately, this has gone too long without any significant edits. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination's search links show books such as Skiffle: The Story of Folk-song with a Jazz Beat; Skiffle: The Definitive Inside Story; Jazz in Britain; &c. which all seem to confirm what we have in the article. The topic is therefore notable and our editing policy is to build upon this content, not to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously needs improvement, but a number of reliable sources confirm its notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - The article, no doubt, needs a lot of work. However, given the multiple references to the group in print, it seems to be at least somewhat notable in a historical sense even if they had little to no chart success. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.