Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New District


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

New District

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article, relying primarily on primary sources and blogs, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest claim here is that their newly-released debut single is "sure" to become a hit in the future, and the whole article is striking exactly the advertorial, rather than encyclopedic, tone that a notability claim like that would imply. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, or because a user predicts that they'll pass WP:NMUSIC in the future -- an article is not appropriate until after something that would get them over NMUSIC has already happened, and even then it has to be written in a neutral tone rather than a marketing/PR tone. Delete, without prejudice if and when the song actually does become a verified, rather than merely predicted, hit. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from the crystal-ball aspect of the entire claim to notability, the sources in the article simply aren't good enough to sustain any such claim.  If that's really all there is, then there's a clear-cut failure to satisfy not only the music-specific notability guidelines, but the general ones, as well.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as by far clearly too soon, started only this year with only imaginably expected coverage...with there nothing else convincing yet. SwisterTwister   talk  18:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, just for the record, that I've also had to pageprotect the article because there were multiple attempts on June 13, by both the article creator and an anonymous IP number, to remove the AFD template from the article while this discussion was still active. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 16 June 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.