Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Pyramid

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Pyramid

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

Delete. Article, written in an advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone, about a band who have a valid potential claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for touring, but which completely fails to reliably source that: right across the board, the referencing here is to primary sources and blogs, with zero evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. A band does not get a free pass over NMUSIC #4 just because their tour can be confirmed in WP:ROUTINE concert listings and blogs; they get over NMUSIC #4 when their tour is the subject of substantive coverage by music journalists. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find real coverage of the tour in real media and give this a major de-advertorial scrubdown, but this as currently written and sourced is not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that they only exist as the opening act for two specific Queen tours. No albums, no singles, no independent coverage outside of routine mentions on Queen-related news. Jergling (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally nothing convincing here since it all summarizes itself quite neatly, the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing with there then nothing better being found. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 16 November 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.