Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECHLN


 * 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. Sock vote has been disregarded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

ECHLN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. Suboptimal sourcing (with relevant tags often removed by apparent COI editors) and lack of mentions or coverage in large papers or access to charts. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Could not find much else on this subject either. RelaxedTim (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is sufficient articles on ECHLN. There are other articles with even less sources that have not been deleted or have a warning of deletion. I have also added more sources and an interview. Iwantwarmfupa (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — Iwantwarmfupa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Article seems sufficient enough because it is based on a recognized South African producer. The article should not be deleted. After reviewing this article, it has come to my realisation that reference 1 -, 5 - , 6 - & 7 - are clear references which make the subject the main subject or sub subject through the nature of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmcontributors2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Esmcontributors2 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Esmcontributors2 (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — Iwantwarmfupa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it would be useful to know which source or event was convincing to assess notability. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely sorry that I misinterpreted some searches. Thanks for the ping. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable third-party sources found to establish notability of the subject. My searches include Google, Google Books, Google Newspapers, and JSTOR. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:39, 22 October 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.