Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotype

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exotype

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

Well can't put this as a prod or a speedy, so doing a AFD. It seems to a be unotable album by a a untoable band. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Where is the article for the band, hm? Eman235/talk 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eman. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dëletë self-promotional bändspäm by 1-subject new user. no RS, no news coverage. spirit-of-metal wëbsite mentioned relies on user-supplied content like non-reliable IMDB does. but there's one helpful thing: the site shows the disc sales to site members: a whopping TWO purchases. so non-notable, it is not worth my time to even finish this senten Cramyourspam (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (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.