Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volt & State

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volt & State

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC completely. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY - the Beatport chart cannot be considered reliable. Karst (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weak delete. Article is well-written but the sources have to back it up. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Additional references needed for verification but subject appears to be notable. Meatsgains (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @VegasCasinoKid: Large part of the article is taken up with a quote on why the duo decided to split up. I'm not sure how constitutes a well-written article. @Meatsgains: I would be interested to know what criteria under WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG you feel that apply here at this stage? Karst (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the quotation should be trimmed significantly and the page is not "well-written".

As far as meeitng WP:MUSIC - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"

Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 18 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.