Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSOD (duo)


 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies.  So Why  09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BSOD (duo)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NMUSIC unremarkable band. The sources are simply user edited wikis a track listing or a reddit. fails WP:GNG. Beatport is considered as a WP:BADCHARTS and should not be used ofr notability purposes. Domdeparis (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page because it fails WP:NMUSIC neither the singles nor the album charted and there are no serious reviews that could be found. Also fails WP:GNG it states in the article that the album was self-released so limited release so didn't chart.:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Delete:. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Agree that Beatport is a WP:BADCHARTS and not a sign of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.