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. (X! · talk)  · @055  ·  00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability is seriously lacking for this article. It's almost borderline spam as the only two refs given are about a company by the name of Beauty Rock records. Can't find reliable third party refs and Google only returns hits about the company and some band by the same name. Was prodded, but contested, so it comes here. t'shael^chat 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -t'shael^chat 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it seems to be a spam article masquerading as a notable article. For full disclosure, I was the prodder. -WarthogDemon 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. In the best case, it's a neologism for a sub-genre of music that isn't in widespread use. In the worst, it's spam for a label/band. In either case, nothing in the article demonstrates why it's a notable subject with independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with all of the above. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not spam for a label or a band. I am not in any of the bands listed and no labels are mentioned aside from the one that clearly verifies my claims. I have updated the references. I am merely trying to bring more light and publicity to this already important term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the "references" that you have added mention "beauty rock". -t'shael^chat 05:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, disguised advertising for the record company of this name. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no advertising going on here. I don't even know who that label is but they clearly indicate the use of the term. Why is this such a huge deal for you to spend your lives scouring websites in order to get a single wikipedia page among millions taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people use the term beauty rock before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprofessorshun (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This comment is the only contribution by this account registered earlier today. -t'shael^chat 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That doesn't make it notable. I've heard my friends use hundreds of terms that are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -t'shael^chat 19:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, notability is so subjective that you cannot objectively tell me that this article should not be included. What one person views as notable, another person does not. I have given you ample references for this article. If this was spam, I would not be conversing with you about the topic and it is obviously not advertisement. What would be the subject that is being advertised? I would hardly call a reference an advertisement. Wikipedia is about the spread of information and ideas. It is user based so why should a user-drafted article be considered for deletion just because you've never heard of the term before? Wikipedia is used for the expansion of knowledge, not hard and fast "facts" (find a college or university that would accept it on a research paper and I'll gladly take this article down if it's that important to you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)

Notability has a set definition on Wikipedia, so yes, we can say that it does not meet the general notability guidelines. As for references, see my comments on the talk page. Of the seven links added today, six didn't mention beauty rock at all; the seventh is the Urban Dictionary definition I mention below. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, thanks for slowing down my access to wikipedia remarkably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)

There were service issues on the evening (UTC) of 2 July 2009. At one point, I couldn't access Wikipedia at all. —C.Fred (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Houston, we have a problem. What's the copyright status of Urban Dictionary definitions? The article as it currently is a word-for-word copy of [1]. A speedy delete may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to C.Fred Well, at the bottom of the page it clearly states Urban Dictionary ©1999-2009 terms of service privacy policy feedback advertise technology live support. So, I believe a speedy deletion per G11 is indeed in order. -t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G12, not G11. I checked the TOS, and it's debatable—the author grants UD rights equivalent to a free license, which is sublicensable, but it doesn't say what restrictions exist on reuse of the text. If you want to tag it as a copyvio, go right ahead. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, don't know why I typed G11.. trying to do too many things at once, I guess. Anyway, I went ahead and tagged it as a copyright vio, so we'll see. -t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote both articles. Thank you. Both are original works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, since it's Urban Dictionary, is entirely plausible. I've removed the speedy deletion tag accordingly. However, it returns us where we were: no independent mentions of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be WP:OR with no secondary sources available. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT! You took off all my references so obviously there aren't going to be any independent mentions. I went through all the trouble of typing out the references and you just delete them without asking me just because you thought they weren't good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.147.56 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the ones I listed at Talk:Beauty Rock, you'll see why they were all removed: none of them discussed beauty rock at all. —C.Fred (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is unsourced, but I have heard of Beauty Rock as a new new genre. --69.161.78.31 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 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.