Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VanJess

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VanJess

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

Band sourced entirely to primary and unreliable sources (mostly blogs), with no substantive claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to an actual notability claim here, in fact, is "got X number of views for a YouTube video", which as always is not a legitimate claim of notability if it cannot be referenced to real sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NMUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiToeness (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom and Luigi. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment T.U.R.N. Magazine looks as if it might be a reliable source, I am less sanguine about Perez Hilton. --Bejnar (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Maybe someday ... --- Mikeblas (talk) 19:18, 20 July 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.