Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/∆AIMON

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

∆AIMON

[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)

Doesn't seem notable enough. WP:GNG is definitely not met (the sources on the article don't seem reliable, and I haven't been able to find any better ones on Google). WP:BAND does not seem to be met to me. You could maybe make an argument that they meet criterion #5 of WP:BAND: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." However, I don't think Artoffact Records counts as a "more important indie label" (based on a quick look through the other bands on their roster), and I don't know that you can say ∆AIMON truly has "two or more albums" with Artoffact (unless you count remix albums or EPs). IagoQnsi (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn’t meet WP:GNG User:TishKit
Delete per WP:GNG. I do not think they meet the criteria for NBAND, as I would not consider Artoffact Records one of the important independent labels (those would be along the lines of Epitaph Records, Hopeless Records, other punk and metal labels that have retained their independence since the 80s and 90s). In addition to the weak sourcing already there, I found one Toronto Star article on the group, which is not enough in conjunction with what's already there to justify retention. As an aside, if this article is kept, it should be renamed to Daimon, Aaimon, or something else that falls within the Latin alphabet for ease of searching. — Ghost River 00:43, 29 January 2022 (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.