Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.O


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

M.O

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Having previously been moved from a preposterous title a month ago, a more thorough read of it does not show anything which indicates notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I tried to A7 it but contested it. Laun chba  ller  13:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, looks like it should have been A7ed to me.  STATic  message me!  02:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was but declined it.--  Laun  chba  ller  10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO A7 is for amateur bands i.e. those that are clearly not notable. The references e.g. this in The Guardian show that the band has at least had some coverage, which means it needed to come here to be discussed. That said, I couldn't find anything else more in depth and so I agree that WP:NMUSIC isn't met at the moment, so would suggest we delete. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If kept, rename to M.O (group) or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (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.