Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Gray (Canadian Band)

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Gray (Canadian Band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable band. Searching for hits resulted mostly in false positives about other bands also called "Dorian Gray", but narrowing it down to "Dorian Gray Canada" or including its band members in my searches failed to find much of use. Either way, this band lacks coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching Dorian Gray St. Catharines Band. A lot comes up. Articles in all the news papers and Exclaim! Seem reliable to me. Kind of hard to find by just searching Dorian Gray as the band is named after a famous character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalcore11 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. "All the news papers" in Metalcore's rationale are local ones in their own home market, with no evidence of substantive coverage anywhere beyond St. Cat's/Niagara — and all I can find on Exclaim! is one not all that substantive blurb about the release of one music video. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is entitled to an article as soon as it becomes possible to verify that they exist; it takes passage of one or more specific WP:NMUSIC criteria, and more than just local reliable source coverage to support the passage of those criteria, for an article to become earned. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when those conditions can be met, but there's just not enough substance or sourcing yet to get them an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 15 December 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.