Talk:Bang Bang Machine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Obviously this isn't the best article written in wikipedia, but what's this all about:

  • Not notable. Can't see any non-trivial sources. Only gets 605 hits on Google.

If we are going to have a debate about how trivial wikipedia is then there's a lot more that needs deleting before this article!

This is a real band that had a record deal, played concerts, released records, got them played on the radio & even were voted No.1 in Peel's festive 50!

Show us a link to the discussion page about how trivial wiki is (and what is considered too trivial!!!).

Most people only come to wiki for the trivia. I mean would you trust anything here that was important! Dyaimz 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Dyaimz, though the article needs some re-write, the group has demonstrated a notoriety to be included in Wikipedia. Shoessss 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSA: Good Luck Dyaimz

To say that BANG BANG MACHINE were not a notable band just shows how a great band can be deleted and dismissed from history. Also John Peel is not a trivial source, he helped shape the music scene in the UK and beyond for years. He also actually listened to songs and bands before making a judgement about them. Any BANG BANG MACHINE fans out there are free to format this page. KEEP BANGING THE MACHINE! Leigh.

Strange article[edit]

Some of it reads like it was written by the band themselves, with no citations.

Also, odd that there's no reference to an earlier Steve Eagles outfit, The Photos - arguably more successful (well, in a conventional popularity way, rather than in a "cult" sense).