Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kult Rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kult Rock

Kult Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable MBisanz talk 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep valid, i have found it in one of the first Google positions and have verified on website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan60 (talk •

contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC) user's only edit DarkAudit (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Darkaudit, Dan60, I looked it up, too. However, having a website doesn't = notability. Worse case, it appears to be astroturf; best case, unnotable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment That just proves their web site exists. There are no sources independent of the subject that proves this, or any, of the articles related to User:Egasa are notable per WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:MUSIC. Stub or not, those guidelines need to be met. They are not. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travistalk 02:59, 31 January 2008 (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.