Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libido Blume

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libido Blume

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

Band without any indication of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are sources, but they don't show how the band clearly meets any of the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:

Please check links and references in order to assess notability

CocoMusic (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)CocoMusic[reply]

Okay. Reviewing what's there at the time I nominated:

Dimatitis: Unable to assess, will assume there's at least a page on the band (and see #7).
Blogspot: Not reliable.
BJCEM: Does not give any in-depth coverage.
Mic: Album review.
Avopolis: Article is on Sigmatropic, not Libido Blume.
Postwave: Again, article is on Sigmatropic.
Rocking: Quotes wholesale from Dimatitis.
Second Avopolis cite: duplicate of Rocking.

So, I think we have exactly one source, and it's not clear from the article or from the soures that the band meets WP:MUSIC. I guess WP:GNG can be looked at as a reason for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:42, 26 September 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.