- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erevanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article makes an attempt at establishing notability, so I don't think CSD A7 applies. Still, though, subject appears to fail WP:BAND ("the band is in its early stagges of what is going to become a musical phenomenon"). Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Dvobgo92
Hello Nick,
I have made the necessary changes. if there is anything else I need to edit to avoid a deletion, please let me know.
Dvobgo92 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)March 24, 2010[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-releasing some tracks on the Internet doesn't come close to meeting WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article shows limited interest and an uneven popularity. Brand[t] 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (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.