Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris 13


 * 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. The "delete" !votes appear to hae the stronger case. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Iris 13

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As far as I can see they have been going close to a decade and they have released a couple of singles and an EP. Fails musicbio and sigcov.  scope_creep Talk  17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there are enough references here and they are of okay quality. I think this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first eight reference on here are annoucements of released singles and constitute straight PR notices.   scope_creep Talk  15:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While around under another name for 10 years, their debut single as IRIS 13 seems to be mid-2020 and first album is apparently due mid-2021. Maybe draftify as WP:TOOSOON? LizardJr8 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not draftify, as it's unlikely the article will be viewed by our readers and will probably wind up getting deleted in six months time. I feel the sources are good enough to keep the article now. NemesisAT (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment They're is no secondary sources here. They changed their name because they were unsuccessful. They're completely non-notable. If there was any large successes on the horizon, it would have been immediately visible. But it is not. We are getting more and more of these bands that are cank, for a better word. Just completly mediocre. They have no standing. They is no fans (there is now sites guage fan numbers), no social media presence, no streaming on the main platforms. They are effectively a pub band and now because the marketing tool are relatively cheap, can keep marketing themselves for almost no money, that makes them feel as though they have a presence. But they are dont. They are mediocre and they only reason we record them here is due to them marketing themselves. Not the fans, as they don't exist.  scope_creep Talk  11:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable sourcing galore presented in the article and I could not find any reliable secondary sources to even show this band qualifies for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2021 (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.