Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperfriend (band)


 * 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 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Paperfriend (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a band whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is being one of the important powerpop bands in their own county. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that they're known anywhere outside their own county, however: there's their own Kickstarter (a primary source that cannot assist notability at all), three blogs (which are not reliable sources) and one citation to the local community newspaper which isn't actually about them but merely contains their name a single time in the caption to a photograph. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to give a band a WP:GNG pass on the basis of the coverage despite having not satisfied NMUSIC. Also, conflict of interest as the creator's username matches one of the band members. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as simply none of this actually suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The secondary sources appear to be about as reliable as your typical blog. -- RM 03:25, 14 April 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.