Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.V.S.M.P.

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The result was discussion withdrawn by the nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B.V.S.M.P.[edit]

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

I looked around and i can't find anything that would satisfy WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Enough proof of notability. Koala15 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A group that had a top three hit in the UK and released three albums on labels that easily satisfy WP:BAND #5 as well as two Best of compilations is notable. You think they would have had such a major hit without receiving enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG? Given that the hit was from 1988, chances of finding that coverage online might be slim. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BAND #2 and #5. Peter James (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2013 (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.