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. No point in letting this rumble on any more. Pretty clear that neither artist is notable (at the moment). Salted. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobonix[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something, this artist seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, so I recommend deletion here. Note that there is another artist with the same name, which confuses things somewhat. I'm not convinced that the other is notable though either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT: I have discussed this in ANI where Wikipedia is not a place for trademark disputes where Wikipedia has no part to play in. Having made aware of the lack of notability, I am concerned that the article may be recreated after deletion, taking the dispute back to square one. If any Mobonix becomes notable then any user can request one via WP:RA. --Marianian^(talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Neither version is notable and Wikipedia is not a battleground. I get the sense that this article is some sort of trophy, and Wikipedia is not that either. Recreation will only mean more disruption. Dlohcierekim 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have the article full-protected at the moment to stamp out the edit-war among competing versions between the two claimants to this name; see article-history for them. Feel free to propose content and RS of either one (preferably on article talkpage) if you think one is notable. I am not taking a position on the notability of either one at this time. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification There are two competing versions for this article, and neither article is supported by significant coverage and neither subject asserts meeting WP:MUSIC. Both article creators assert some sort of legal right to the name, and are contending over the two competing versions. Please see the talk page and the discussion at AN/I for further details. Dlohcierekim 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither musical artists that use the name "Mobonix" meet Wikipedia's notability standards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - i had made a note on the talk page voicing my skepticism that either subject would meet notability criteria and that the involved parties should present third party coverage. None has been presented so far and I found nothing in searches. I am willing to be convinced otherwise by the presentation of sources such as music trade periodicals which do not appear in googlenews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see the updated support for notability using Wikipedia's criteria on the talk page. Please keep in mind that notability standards were met a decade ago and are difficult to gather (but I'm trying). Thanks. Illxchild (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- the only additional source of mention is the college student newspaper, which is not really something that counts in determining notability. the others, primary sources that indicate one of his songs appeared on a radio playlist are not determinative that it was actually "in rotation" to satisfy that criteria, and IMDB just verifies existence/technical credits in films, but not notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability(edit: of either artist). CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment If either or both are found to be notable or become notable, an article about that person/those persons needs to be moved to or created under their name rather than Mobonix. Dlohcierekim 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's apparent to me that this article exists for promotional purposes for one of the claimants, as he has removed the afd tag with an edit summary about not "confusing the public" and asserting his trademark. This is a single purpose account named for one of the claimants. Once again, the trademark issue is not our concern as editors. It is an off-wiki dispute,and Wikipedia is not a battleground. This claimant version is a usurpation of the original article. Wikipedia is not here to promote his trademark. Dlohcierekim 16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. AS far as Wikipedia is concerned, neither person claiming to be Mobonix meets our notability criteria, and this isn't a platform for legal disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and per my question on WP:AN/I#User bringing real world legal dispute onto project "... put up a notice on the page that says something to the nature of "due to an ongoing legal battle over the trademark of this name, this title has been locked until said battle has concluded." and full protect the page, semi-protect the talk page ..." Technical 13 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (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.