Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sending Orbs

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. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sending Orbs

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

Article is on a label of extremely lacking coverage in independent sources. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettel (2nd nomination). edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable label. Fails NMUSIC#5, as the single artist to have an article has been deemed non-notable, and the other blue link is a re-direct to a peripheral artist. No independent, reliable sources found, fails WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches don't show enough to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet either WP:CORP or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 11 February 2016 (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.