Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divinity Angels Of Rock


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Divinity Angels Of Rock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the band appears (appeared?) to be signed to a major label, which theorietically would make them pass WP:NBAND, I could not find any significant coverage, or indeed any coverage about the band at all. All I could find were band profiles, streaming sites or websites selling the band's CDs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment A previous article about the band was deleted last year: see Articles for deletion/Divinity Angels of Rock for more information. As I am not an administrator I have no access to the old article but I presume this is a new article and thus G4 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable and I have a sneaking suspicion that G4 could apply here. This is the editor's only contribution. Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging who deleted the previous version of the article, to check if this version is identical to the old one. If so, this should be tagged as G4. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not identical, but pretty damn close.  MBisanz  talk 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt both the "Of" and "of" versions of the article. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources offered or to be found. Even by self-publishing standards, seems super-thin. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:19, 14 January 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.