Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripti Ensemble Crew


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Tripti Ensemble Crew

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable and unsourced for an obscure group. It is also not at all written in an encyclopedic style, with the lead sounding more like it belongs on a Fandom site. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is a fandom entry. All the references are primary and inadmissible. Search brings nothing. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Google serach turns up no reliable independent sources that show significant coverage on the band. The only hits are from social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Myspace. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whatever this article is about, and I am not sure I understand, it is a relic of our worst years and certainly doesn't belong here now.  RobinCarmody (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. No source is provided, all sources are from social media sites. Furthermore, working with Radiohead does not mean that they are notable. Also, the way that this article is written is quite peculiar. Inter-dimensional band, time-travelling rock band? SunDawn  talk  07:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would concur with all of the comments above and would agree that it is a rather odd article. However leaving that aside it seems clear that the subject of the article clearly fails any notability standards so there is no reason to keep it. Dunarc (talk) 20:44, 5 August 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.