Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obe Dve

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obe Dve[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authoritative references indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep @SL93: did you not search Russian sources? @Rpclod: what do you mean? The original Russian article has plenty of references. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are reliable, and from those reliable not all describe in detail the subject of this article. XXN, 17:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I search for the name in Gnews and am getting a number of hits link, including what appears to be by-lined review: Review: "Both the two" - "Boy", which can be read via Google Translate. Given the language barrier and on the balance of things, I'd say it's a keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That bylined review looks like it comes from a PR company... What other review give us enough content to warrant a separate article on this topic? czar 22:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 12 June 2017 (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.