Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Version

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. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Version

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

Minimal RS coverage exists to fail A7 but I cannot find any coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. reddogsix (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some coverage found: Rolling Stone, Radio One Chicago, webzine, The Revue. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are some reviews of their work, but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG. If it is, please let me know. I have no doubt that WP:NBAND is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have not passed any criteria of WP:BAND; what else can you say about them apart from they exist and have released some music that hasn't even charted. While you could scramble enough sources together to verify the article, being mentioned along side lots of other bands and a couple of reviews hear and there from niche publications (and using volunteers in Spill Magazine's & The Revue's case) is not really significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2017 (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.