Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Stars poster


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Southern Stars poster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Overly promotional cruft on a poster. Part of the COI creators spamming herself into wikipedia into multiple different places. It's a big mass of coatracks and association using multiple references that verify related aspects but have nothing to do with the subject. (note that Betty Guillaud was the Times Picayune gossip columnist.) The external link section is just a linkfarm for people associated with the poster. (Contrary to lie in the articles page history the speedy G11 was not declined, it was arbitrarily overturned because someone had previously asked for a prod refund). per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see where the first source, the USA Today article looks as if it actually talks about the poster but the rest of the sources seem to be predominantly about the stars performing. If we could find proof that the poster is actually mentioned in-depth in the articles then that would be slightly different but the titles of the articles as well as the stuff I'm finding in a search show that this poster is usually only mentioned in passing, if it's mentioned at all. Most of the sources I'm finding are things that have been inserted by users into various social media sites or various spam sites. I'm honestly not seeing where this particular poster is so overwhelmingly notable that it deserves an article all to itself. If Omni Attractions had an article then this might be worth a mention there, but I'm not seeing where this site honestly deserves its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I found some mention of the USA Today article, but it looks like it might have just been a brief mention: "Southern Stars, a poster-size collection of childhood pictures of famous living musicians from New Orleans and Louisiana, has been printed in a limited edition of 1,000. The star-studded poster, which took eight months to construct, features early pictures of Fats Domino, Gatemouth Brown, Frogman Henry, the Neville Brothers, Frankie Ford, Ernie K-Doe and dozens more. Some are calling it a work of art. But instead of being sold, framed and autographed copies of the poster are being given to anyone booking one of the musicians through Omni Attractions, a local talent agency." In other words, it looks like it's one of those one-off 1-3 sentence blurbs that appear in various papers and not an actual in-depth article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just can't find anything that specifically mentions this poster that is in-depth, independent, and reliable. I can find various social media sites that mention the poster (mostly linking back to one of the editors that created the page) or one or two semi-reliable sites that very briefly mention the poster in passing, but nothing that would show that it passes notability guidelines or is such an icon that it would merit an entry. It's simply not notable enough. The talk page tries to rationalize that being hung in a Hard Rock Cafe shows notability, but the thing is that the HRC will often hang posters from various concerts, tours, and whatnot. This doesn't mean that the poster is independently notable of the band/concert/etc. I just don't see proof that any of the in-depth coverage that the original editor is claiming is out there actually exists or is as in-depth as they claim it is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability of the poster is not established. If the agency that issued it is notable then it could be mentioned there.  Most of the article is not about the poster itself, but about people that have some connection to it. BigJim707 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 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.