Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jughead (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jughead (band)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

"Supergroup" lacking significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. My internet search did not find any significant coverage. Zero results in Rock's Backpages. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have gone to speedy as recreation or for not signifying its importance. Despite having four members with articles, they fail WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is basically just a database entry. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supergroup made up of four absolutely notable people, but the group and its album came and went with zero notice. Jughead is already mentioned briefly at each of the members' individual articles and that will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have requested speedy on this, but clearly the nommer is a much nicer person than I am. Or was it because that misplaced 'supergroup' (yeah, right...) descriptor might have been interpreted as a claim to fame, of sorts? Anyhoo, utterly non-notable, not to mention unreferenced (and probably unreferencable), so needs to go. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2021 (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.