Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature Living


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nature Living

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a band which does not meet WP:BAND. My searches have found nothing about this band to prove notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Exactly and this has existed since July 2010 with hardly any change and giving more than enough time for improvement but there obviously isn't any and my searches found no better sourcing. Not to mention with the official website closed and the social media only active now, there's nothing to suggest better notability and improvement and frankly the Japanese Wiki article needs to be go as well (unless this can actually be improved later). SwisterTwister   talk  07:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment One issue here is that this band technically has charted. WP:BAND says that a band "may be notable" if they have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Nature Living has done that twice: . But the numbers are not great: 225 for one album, 257 for another. WP:BAND says nothing about what ranks are legitimate—only whether it ranked or not—and a lot of bands listed on Oricon's database don't even get that ranking. Applying WP:GNG might help. There is some coverage on the net in Japanese:, , , , including some album reviews and mentions on a major site like CDJournal . But at this point I hesitate to judge whether this is sufficient. Michitaro (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. The issue raised by Michitaro is valid, but it is not at all clear how much weight we should give to albums that chart so low on such a large chart.  I reach my position by looking at the article itself and noting that, in the lead paragraph, the only asserted claim to notability is recording two cover versions (and with no indication that these covers charted on their own).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given the absence of any in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - charting only means it "may" be notable. NewYorkActuary's point is spot on. Searches show it lacks in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:38, 12 October 2015 (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.