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