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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Styleslut[edit]

Notability not established per WP:WEB. User talk:Seicer#Styleslut has additional links, with one site proclaiming that the blog is the "fifth most popular" blog, but it is not verified elsewhere with reliable sources. Speedy deleted, but brought back to AFD per talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Tempshill (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the reflist, but sources are woefully unimpressive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are 'Dazed and Confused' and 'The Guardian' newspaper 'woefully unimpressive? As stated in convo with Seicer, please see complete list of links from numerous respectable sources:

http://music.guardian.co.uk/urban/story/0,,2204182,00.html http://www.dazeddigital.com/incoming/item.aspx?a=340 http://bp1.blogger.com/_ABdF67EWGBc/RwFOnT35AuI/AAAAAAAAAIA/w3AP4P9Rp6I/s1600-h/donald.jpg http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c227/styleslut/styleslutmyspace.jpg http://www.rwdmag.com/articles/5094.html http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/events/395236/styleslut_presents_hood-stonbury-07.html

20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation to a Guardian article that contains no information about the subject is unimpressive. Addhoc (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is an image from Photobucket included in a list of links from numerous respectable sources? SWik78 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ignorant nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have an inclusionist, judging from your Keeps in your contribution history? seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Guardian reference is so trivial that it can be ignored. I'm not sure that Time Out is a reliable source, and the other sources don't appear to be. Overall, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are appropriate for the subject matter. Catchpole (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, they're not. SWik78 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The included references are highly appropriate for the subject matter, as they are all highly respected and are well known for documenting new scenes and movements in the industry in question. Suggesting a page be deleted because you are not aware of the brand and/or have not extensively researched its impact, underground or otherwise, is quite ignorant.

Hector douche (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photobucket files are not highly respected and are well known for documenting new scenes and movements in the industry in question. SWik78 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link to a photobucket page of a scan from a magazine (NME), which has no online link to a relevant article, is acceptable, no? I provided that to show that the brand is known and respected by a mainstream publication.

If the brand has been covered by a ‘reliable’ print source, that has not put the article online, then I’m not sure of another way to provide it as evidence in this discussion. Please let me know of a way to display magazine scans which you think is more acceptable, as there are more scans that can be provided to give you a better understanding of the brands relevance.

Also I would like the editors who have voted to 'delete' to elaborate on why the online links included are not 'reliable' and what they see as 'reliable' sources.

Hector douche (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SWik78 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm saying The Guardian is a reliable source, however the article cited is worthless because the mention is completely trivial. I'm also saying that I'm not convinced that Time out is a reliable source. Addhoc (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article describes a ‘scene’ (whore-ditch) and says you should ‘read: styleslut’ to know more about the scene. Therefore, a reliable source has stated the relevance of Stylesut within the context of which it was originally referenced on the wiki entry.

Time Out magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Out fits the criteria of reliable sources.

62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the Guardian mention is trivial; it associates the Styleslut with a scene, but nothing more. In terms of being a source for this article, I would suggest the reference is virtually worthless. Also, yes, I know what Time out is, thanks. I'm still not convinced that it constitutes a reliable source for an encyclopedia. However, I guess we disagree about this. Kudos for discussing this civilly. Addhoc (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. So far, the article has no reliable, independent sources that I see. BWH76 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (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.