Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H2hos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. North America1000 07:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H2hos[edit]

H2hos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is sourced to a couple of local news pieces. I can find a couple of other mentions elsewhere but nothing looking like reliable sources. I’m not sure this group is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article was written by User:Ekellyekelly, a member of the group. I don't see the routine local human-interest articles as establishing notability for the short-lived local performing group. Reywas92Talk 07:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SPA issues aside, as indicated above, there are a couple of local interest pieces, but nothing substantive to pass WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The coverage of the group never really extended past local interest pieces, and even then was not substantial. Rorshacma (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2019 (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.