Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhythmology

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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythmology

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be self-promotion. Deskford (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be completely unverifiable; fails WP:BIO^{([1], [2], etc.)}, WP:PROMOTION. — Rankiri (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROMOTION --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed all attempts to establish notability in any sense (adding WP:Music to above). The only vaguely useful thing is this. But anyone can premiere a forgotten piece in concert. I even checked him out on YouTube but only got the well-known dance studio and people playing from a useful primer for funk guitar. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jubileeclipman --Klein zach 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jublieeclipman. Risker (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (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.