Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacklite District


 * 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 no consensus. NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Blacklite District

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not cite any sources, and it is written like an advert. Seeing how a lot of the content is about the supposed success of this group, references should be a requirement. I am proposing a deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The multiple issues tags are dated December 2013 and nobody seems to be interested in fixing it, even through it has been actively edited. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: needs severe pruning and removal of promotional language if kept, but the claims of two charting songs on the Billboard Mainstream Rock Chart is true . Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criterion two with charting singles on a notable national music chart, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that the band was not notable. However, the article is so poor in terms of verifiability and inclusiveness that it would be easier to write a new article than to reword every promotional claim and seek out references to save it. The article has been actively edited by a lot of different editors, none of which are interested in adding references to it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:TNT may be applicable here – no opinion on keep or delete, but if kept, then restart and if deleted, restart with new sources. quick search turned up many results, so this might pass WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  04:43, 1 October 2018 (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.