Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPECTRE (artist collective)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SPECTRE (artist collective)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

dePRODed by creator (possibly  a WP:SPA) without  addressing  the issues. Concern = ''No media coverage, no WP:RS. This looks like a promotional exercise for some kind of performance art.''  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as pretty blatant promotion. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment dePRODed by me (the creator). I gave explanations in the talk page of the article, I thought they were good enough to convince you to let the page live. I'm not trying to promote anything, I'm just describing the stuff they're doing. I even found cross reference in another Wikipedia article (predating the one about Spectre), can it be a reliable source? Egorain21
 * No, WP is never a source for itself. Please read WP:N, WP:RS and, perhaps, WP:COI before commenting further. EEng (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SMERSH it. No suitable coverage given in article, and impossible to search given the silly name.  EEng (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Coverage can be searched, content is notable, there are cross references inside Wikipedia, no promotion. This is turning into a trial where one must prove attackers wrong. Egorain21 —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it is -- the WP:BURDEN is on you. Please, to avoid wasting your fellow editors' time, please take the advice already given and read the guidelines I listed earlier before commenting further.  We need multiple, independent, reliable sources.  EEng (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it is -- the WP:BURDEN is on you. Please, to avoid wasting your fellow editors' time, please take the advice already given and read the guidelines I listed earlier before commenting further.  We need multiple, independent, reliable sources.  EEng (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No Reliable Source coverage found. Links in article are from blogs etc. The "collective" was only founded last year, so maybe in the future it will become notable, but at this point it does not pass the notability test. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (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.