Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiecision


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indiecision

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be spam that probably should have been speedy deleted. All cites are links to the website itself (typical recursive "This site is notable because it says it is" logic). I have tagged a separate related article, NH7 Radio for speedy deletion as well (it is being contested). The talk page in that article uses Indiecision as tenuous support for notability. Quartermaster (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll do the leg work... Mentions in Times of India, NME Livemint.com (connected to Hindustan Times), Indian Express, Time Out Mumbai. Not quite enough yet... More extensive coverage in The Global Post but not sure on that one's status as WP:RS, Mumbai Mirror has some good coverage as well. If the Global edition of CNN has the blog's editor writing for them I would consider that, and if Campaign Asia (Google cache paywall evade) also interviews him, I think that indicates his and/or his blog/magazine's notability. The editor is clearly good at self-promotion, but if I read one more time that Indiecision is the leading info point for Indian alternative music I might cry... There might not be quite enough sources in the views of some editors, but we should remember that this is all happening in India, and I believe we have a duty to counter WP:Systemic bias. Bigger digger (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment: Four of the five references used are to the same website of the subject of the article. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought you were criticising the sources I found. To others, QM is referring to the existing article, which is obviously ripe for clean-up. Bigger digger (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am making the argument based on the sources you listed. If it was based solely on what is currently in the article, it would be a strong delete vote.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree, the article is currently useless, but my comment was directed at QM, which is why it's underneath his comment. To 137.122, feel free to delete this comment and yours above, as it doesn't add anything. Don't undo it as I have edited my earlier comment for (hopefully!) some extra clarity... Bigger digger (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Consensus is not clear. Relisting a second time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - While Bigger digger really hunted down sources, it amounts mostly to passing mentions, except for the Mumbai Mirror, or coverage by Arjun S Ravi which is not an independent source (there appears to be more coverage of that person than of Indiecision). Can't really say there is significant independent coverage of Indiecision, thus unless more independent sources are found, I'd say delete.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Lack of notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with IP 137's views on the "sources". Subject does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:21, 15 September 2010 (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.