Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klaypex

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 keep. Dennis - 2¢ 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klaypex

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Insignificant coverage; self-published sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Magnolia677, YourEDM isn't considered significant? Is there a list of notable versus not notable online EDM publications floating around out there, or is it all pretty much subjective? Earflaps (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per #2 of wp:musicbio : "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." (I don't vote on pages I write myself, but I can't take any credit on this one - I just reworded and posted what other editors had worked on for a year in the incubator) Earflaps (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOSBIO No. 2. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.