Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:King of Little Sweden

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Although there is commentary, none of it pushes for an actual keep and most of it discusses the likelihood that this would fail mainspace criteria, so I am closing this as delete. As always, if any established editor wants to work on/promote this, ping me for undeletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:King of Little Sweden


Unreferenced draft providing no indication of musical notability submitted by blocked promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Inacurrate in the reason for the block. It is only a username soft block.  Bigger than a WP:YAMB, but new and unsigned.  No good reason to delete as a draft prior to G13. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This band, and four released songs, verifiably exist. You can buy them.  A added a site to the draft talk page.  I cannot find any reviews, and the songs are old, so I am confident that it is very improbably that this topic can meet WP:NMUSIC.  However, the name of the band and the songs are difficult search terms, many false hits.  In principle, the author should be allowed to get a change in username, and be given the opportunity to add reliable sources reviewing discussing and band, its songs, and its members.  In the typically common outcome that this doesn't happen, the page will be deleted in six months under the WP:CSD process.
 * There is some movement towards the creation of an AfC "reject" response, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. This submitted draft would be tagged with that reject template.  There is little likelihood of it being demonstrated to be notable, but not zero possibility.  If I were to review this as a new article in the Special:NewPagesFeed, I would WP:PROD it.  If I were in a grumpier mood, I would say "promotion based on unsuitable sources", WP:CSD it, and expect to see it deleted by User:RHaworth within the hour.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.