Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Tit' Nassels

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. joe deckertalk 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Tit' Nassels[edit]

Les Tit' Nassels (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)

Quite questionably notable and improvable as the French Wiki is basically the same and the best my searches found was this, this and this and this has basically stayed the same since January 2007. Pinging Vrac (espero que todo esta bien contigo ) SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: found some concert announcements but not much depth to the coverage. Vrac (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging interested subject users Michig and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search shows nothing. The French version of the article offers only one source that could be considered reliable. Not enough for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found some French coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4]) but not enough top convince me that the subject is notable enough. As the article doesn't really give an indication of why the group are notable I would go for delete unless something more convincing is turned up. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2015 (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.