Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotion Pictures

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. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion Pictures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable.

talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverchair discography, where it isn't currently mentioned.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverchair discography. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Disambiguate between
The Best of Volume 1 which makes it a good enough target for one item in a new disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can't find any reliable, independent sources that demonstrate that this meets the
notability criteria. Intriguingly, there is a mention in a list of titles at Australia's Parliamentary debates (Hansard): House of Representatives, Volume 246, but as there is only a snippet view available, and neither "Emotion Pictures" nor "Silverchair" are mentioned anywhere else in that volume, it would appear that this would not be significant coverage. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Pretty much what has already been said, there is a lack of reliable sourcing to make this notable. Truthsort (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2011 (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.