Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The LilsBoys (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LilsBoys

[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)

Promotionally-toned article. No evidence of notability outside the pages of

deprecated source ... David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be neutral here. I understand that BLP has raised the bars but do we have to filter every old article through this. And yes, as per now, they don't pass WP:GNG. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we do have to filter as many old articles as we can through improved BLP standards if we are going to be a reliable encyclopaedia. And indeed the subject of this article is certainly not meaningfully notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Sun isn’t a reliable source and so unless there’s anything elsewhere, fails
WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion. We have been far too lax in enforcing this rule for me to say with a straight face we are not currently a platform for promotionalism. We really need to pare back on junk articles in a big way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (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.