Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beautified Project

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautified Project[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. My Elder Goth ♥ tells me to argue for a "keep", but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this band. Please, please, prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sorry, this may be a cool band, but no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Not to mention that the contributors are edit-warring to maintain a version of the article that runs afoul of a laundry list of policies and guidelines, such as WP:COI WP:OWN WP:ADVERT WP:SPAM WP:EL WP:MOS. It's a lost cause, at this point.

Delete. There are no references to back up the article's claims and I can find no evidence for any of it in reliable sources. Therefore the entire article falls foul of WP:V. Furthermore, even if true, the band does not appear to meet WP:BAND - specifically, there is no listed Armenian WP:GOODCHART so even if "best selling" albums equates to chart success criterion #2 cannot apply; I can find no evidence to support the existence of their record label so it's certainly not notable so criterion #5 does not apply. The best bet for establishing notability would be the nominations at the Armenian Music Awards. Whether this would be sufficiently "major" to meet criterion #8 is doubtful, but irrelevant without evidence; certainly it's not mentioned at the award website: [1]. So try as I might, I am unable to prove the nominator wrong as they requested - sorry. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (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.