Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the Dance Floor (group)


 * 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. No evidence of meeting the notability standards, and no signifcant changes from the previously deleted and salted article; in fact, this one appears to have exactly the same content...merely less of it. Resalted. The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood on the Dance Floor (group)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable band. They are unsigned. Emptyviewers (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In case it's of interest/relevance, a previous article on this group was deleted after an AfD in May 2010 (see Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band)). --Several Pending (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It seems that the fan club just cannot take a hint here, this "band" is a straight-forward notability fail; no reliable sources, no major tours, alum releases on major labels or known indie ones, none of the WP:N or WP:BAND criteria is met. If an admin could compare the deleted Blood on the dance floor (band) to the current article, perhaps we can just speedy  G4 this and get it over with.  Tarc (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G4 only applies to articles previously deleted at AfD, not to those deleted under CSD or PROD. This article doesn't qualify. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does an article qualify when the deleting admin says, "Deleted and salted per discussion. Someone please close this AFD; I can never remember how to do it"? --Several Pending (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Malik, it was deleted under a different name format, see Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band). Tarc (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails both WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Was previously deleted after AfD, and then recreated, but same problems still exist.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & per being a god-awful boy band popular among 12 year old girls that will die out in about 2 years. This group certainly does not need an article as they won't even matter soon enough along with many other reasons such as the fact that they are unsigned (and won't ever be due to the group's constant statements such as "fuck labels, we're doing this on our own") and have never released a charting a album or attained much media coverage bigger than just a few columns or adds in national magazines. • GunMetal Angel  04:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Being "god-awful" is not a reason for deletion. And being popular with 12 year old girls is more an argument for notability and keeping the article. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that was the reason for the deletion. Maybe you should read the rest of that attestment. I specifically aimed for the fact that they're not signed to an actual label, never will be and barely have a charting label and will die out in less than 2 years nonetheless. • GunMetal Angel  00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. References say label of "Candyland Records".  This may be their own, but no worse than many bands on Wikipedia.  this cite also suggest some minor chart success.  The article is certainly poor and needs an overhaul to make it less of a fan page, but it looks to me that notability could be established. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of those arguments. #1 is a straight-up WP:OTHERSTUFF case for "Candyland Records", a garish website that lists all of one artist, and not this one.  If other band articles are resting their notability solely on similar barely-existent record labels then drop me a note on my talk page with a list so we can evaluate.  Second, the charts argument is a better shot, but IMO just getting on the sub-lists like Heatseekers isn't really meeting the spirit of WP:BAND #x.  If there were other criteria of that guide they were close to meeting, maybe this would tip the scales, but there's nothing else out there.  I would not call to keep a band article on just a minor chart appearance. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Unsigned does not mean non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I would hardly call this trivial coverage http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/blood_on_the_dance_floor_interview_2012 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsigned actually does play a big part in meeting the requirements for notability on Wikipedia for music articles. Also, one Alternative Press story does not take in notability. Here's an Alternative Press news story for the band Upon a Burning Body headlining Mayhem Fest yet notice how they have no article due to not meeting the requirements of notability for Wikipedia. • GunMetal Angel  00:59, 30 March 2012 (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.