Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Less Gay Love Tekno Party

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. In view of the lack of participation this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Less Gay Love Tekno Party

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

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and little reliable source coverage to support it. With the exception of one (deadlinked) article in an alt-weekly, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to blogs, primary sources like their own website and the site of a company with which they had a direct sponsorship deal, a Flickr photostream and a Yelp listing -- which means we're at exactly zero for sources that can carry WP:GNG. And the only substantive claim of notability here is that one member went on to form another more notable band as a side project, which means nothing here actually passes NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 October 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.