Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplekita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no particularly strong evidence of reliable source coverage to get them over WP:GNG: of the three sources here, one is the band's own self-penned PR bio on CBC Music's "bands get to repost their own PR bios" section; one is a 100-word blurb wrapped around an embedded YouTube performance video; and one is an album review on a music website (Blurt) that might be an acceptable reliable source if the rest of the sourcing around it were better, but cannot carry WP:GNG in and of itself as the article's only acceptable source. (And no, for the record, the existence of the CBC Music profile does not in and of itself constitute proof that they've gotten over NMUSIC #11 by getting playlisted on the CBC -- that section's open to any Canadian band at all that wants to make a song or two available for streaming, regardless of whether R2 or R3 has put them into rotation or not.) All of which means nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to pass our notability standards for bands. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis. Legacypac (talk) - 04:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article for the applicable notability, not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:52, 23 February 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.