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: Speedily deleted due to either no claim of notability or snowball clause (your choice), with vandalism of this discussion/vote by the article's creator on top. (Service not included.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuphoriaX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article establishes no notability for the band. The page seems to simply be an advertisement/bio page created by either a band member or someone associated with it. The only albums this band has created are self published and there is no indication of widespread recognition or any "hits" per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After giving it some thought this seems to fall under general criteria #11 for speedy deletion and I'm marking it for such as well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although this artist isnt well known doesn't give reasons for deletion, i for this reason see this as unfair, and is notable with the WP:BAND as 2 of the 3 singles have had more than one hour of radio play, on 90.7 SYN FM, Australia, which now is in the article!--T0ny993 | talk 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm sure you don't want this article to be deleted, modifying other's opinions like you did here are unacceptable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And don't remove other people's comments, like you did to my comment above. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well dont make stupid idiotic complaints that are false, you say that it isnt notable by WP:BAND However if you check the atricle for radioplay, it actually is, so get your facts right!. T0ny993 (talk, walk) 08:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not alter other people's comments. I just reverted your vandalism, replacing one of his liks with a link to some website and replacing the second with a link to the anal sex article. TJ Spyke 09:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article per nom. Group isn't notable by WP:BAND. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This band is undocumented anywhere. Once again, we see a musical group that went to MySpace to sell its music and went to Wikipedia to write up primary source documentation about itself, cross linking the two. Wikipedia is not a free web host for bands to document themselves. Please pay for your own web hosting. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, that things only warrant articles in once they have been independently documented by the world at large. Per our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Wouldn't ahve bothered voting until I saw the vandalism of the supporters. No place on Wikipedia for people like that.Spinningspark (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (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.