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.
Delete. Agree with the nominator. No charting performances and no reliable sourcing (indeed, virtually no independent sourcing at all). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have also found nothing better at all, nothing for the applicable notability and nothing else is convincing which is not surprising considering it seems they're not largely active. SwisterTwistertalk21:08, 27 May 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.