Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMX.

=[[BMX.]]=

:{{la|BMX.}} ([{{fullurl:BMX.|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMX.}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I do not see any sign of notability, and it seems to me that a sentence like "people in the industry are really starting to recognise the little known BMX", even accepting its weasely wording as true, is an indication of non-notability. Goochelaar (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I had previously tagged this for speedy deletion, refused [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BMX.&diff=228150153&oldid=228139732 here]. Buggered if I can see any claim of notability, certainly there is no evidence to support any such claim. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No indication of notability and no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete don't think it meets speedy criteria because the assertion of top 10 position on unearthed attempts to claim some notability. I don't think its enough for WP:BAND though -Hunting dog (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - #9 on the triple-J unearthed Dance chart is not a big deal. Having a single live radio interview is also not. About as notable as any other almost completely unknown band - Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

: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.