Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absinth3

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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absinth3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO in that there is not enough independent, in-depth third-party coverage in the media. The article is too dependent on unreliable sources such as websites with user-generated content. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any independent coverage (besides that sketchy NeonVice site, which I don't consider reliable). -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any coverage in reliable sources, so notability has not been established when judged against WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better which is unsurprising looking at this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing meeting WP:GNG appears to be self promotion / WP:TOOSOON - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 26 March 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.