Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Diamonds (band)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Black Diamonds (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

'Youngest Profesional Band' according to the Guiness Book of Pointless Trivia oops, records. This is obviously a claim of notability, but one that is liable to vanish into thin air..."They were once in the GBPT but can no longer stake the claim" seems likely given time and obviously is a very slender claim to notability. There is nothing else of substance to suggest notability. And the band are hardly new... TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep The Band passes notability guidelines for music bands. Moreover Guiness Book of Records is a World Record, None in the world like them, it makes them more notable. Akuhiltyion (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How can a band which has gained no attention whatsoever in five years be considered notable???TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * & note that above is the opinion of the article creator.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment : Pls go through the article, before commenting . They have won various prestigious awards other than Guiness Records, and was nominated for many awards and have performed live in many national and international concerts. Moreover The band was founded in 2009 ie; 7 years old band. Even a 1 month or 1 year band can be notable according to how people like them. Thank you Akuhiltyion (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the word @prestigious' means? I thought not. As it stands the article fails to make any credible claim to notability. Just a bunch of wannabees.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment : Dont go personal here, And dont try to teach me english pls. Moreover I noticed you removed contents from the article. I doubt you have some hidden agenda to put this page down ! Akuhiltyion (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete I have to say that there is no particular reason to keep the page. The notability is not there, there are no current news stories and even the page itself is lackluster and devoid of pertinent information about the band. Kaobear (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles from The Eagle-Tribune, Haverhill Gazette, Boston.com proves notability Akuhiltyion (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as even with the Guinness World Record, this is still questionable for anything else including for notability apart from that, so this would be best mentioned at, say, the World Records list, until there's better sources for this band since my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment : According to WP:BAND, the band proves its notability as it passed not only 1 createria but 7+ criteria for WP:Band notability. It passes criteria 1, Criteria 9, Criteria 4 ,Criteria 5 , Criteria 10 , Criteria 11 and 12. Akuhiltyion (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Local rags in Boston, Mass. And it's "criterion", not "criteria" in the singular. Try and substantiate these claims....I don't think you'll be able to.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2016 (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.