Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syncsta

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syncsta[edit]

Delete: fails both WP:MUSICBIO & WP:WEB. Only coverage is on Youtube (unreliable) and a single mention on 'entertainment gossip mag' Now magazine ("tabloid journalism" per WP:NOT#NEWS). Prod-notice removed as part of vandalism of the article, so AfDing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 11 million views on YouTube has not resulted in any significant news coverage, only a nn website and an agent. There's no information in this article that can't be replicated when and if Syncsta gains notability. Flowanda | Talk 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually YouTube is the most reliable source when it comes to YouTube hits, so I'm not concerned about that. I'm worrying about the lack of other sources. The single magazine mention doesn't do it for me (why do you consider Now a gossip mag? Every publication occasionally resorts to juicy stories to get readers. So far I've seen no evidence of that mag being any less reliable than other publications. I'm more interested in how they ended up on Lilly Allen and Friends; that could've drummed up some publicity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer is in its article: "It is a mix of celebrity news, gossip and fashion" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MUSIC. However, I would argue (if only for a second) that given the rise of the "YouTube star" phenomenon, the criteria for inclusion in these cases might be a bit out of touch. And I say only for a second because I would be at a loss to try to come up with a threshold for notability here. Number of views? That has been known to be gamed. But I don't quite agree with the requirement that the mainstream media be involved in order to validate references like these. §FreeRangeFrog 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I am strongly against one-shot Youtube "stars" getting articles. lonelygirl15, yes; "ooh, I can lip-synch", no. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:50, 16 February 2009 (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.