Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardust Reverie Project

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust Reverie Project

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

~~Not notable. Nothing in news. Greek Legend (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this imagines better applicable notability, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If they're notable, I don't see it. Fails WP:BAND. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to easily meet WP:BAND#5. Hobit (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial references made up mostly of non-notable music blogs and the like equals zero evidence of coverage or references by non-trivial independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of the WP:BAND#5 issue? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to you, Hobit, while this band involves some level of contributions from a hodgepodge of musicians who are, in some cases, unquestionably notable, the band (or project?) itself lacks verifiable evidence of accomplishment or notability. The references provided are fan blogs and the band's own website. If the article provided non-trivial, independent references it would go a long way towards getting me to consider changing my vote, but I'm not even sure that would be enough. The band's social media efforts on Facebook have resulted in little more than 150 likes, and the founder's You Tube channel posting of the bands videos average less than 1,000 views. While such evidence is not within wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, something tells me there's not much "there" there, if you know what I mean. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply. I'd say it still pretty plain this meets WP:BAND#5, but your points are reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not my field, but even I can see that this is a clearly promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable and fails WP:BAND Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:21, 14 April 2016 (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.