Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulture News
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 delete per lack of independent reliable sources and salt per Scientizzle's reasoning. — TKD::Talk 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kulture News
It was tagged for a speedy and a PROD, but was removed on both occasions, so I guess this is the next step. There doesn't seem to be multiple, third party sources on this company. Just their own official websites. I am nominating Kulture Media Group for the same reason. Spellcast 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete them both. There's little information other than MySpace and self-refering website. SilkTork 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE!!! Kulture New has a staff of journalist and resources to verify its legitimacy. The article was also placed correctly into the adequate categories. CoreyArthurs 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- They do have their own staff and resources. But is there any other sources apart from the company itself to meet the notability standards? If there is, feel free to provide reliable sources. Thanks! Spellcast 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. WP:NN, does not assert WP:N, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of notability; 28 Google hits suggests it hasn't done much to attract interest or reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE!!! Problems have been fixed reliable sources and notability proof is set forth herein.
With 916 page views with 650 of those being unique visits I would say lack of notability is an false statement.
Date Day Unique Visits
- 8/1/2007 Wednesday 17
- 8/2/2007 Thursday 44
- 8/3/2007 Friday 21
- 8/4/2007 Saturday 34
- 8/5/2007 Sunday 34
- 8/6/2007 Monday 41
- 8/7/2007 Tuesday 39
- 8/8/2007 Wednesday 46
- 8/9/2007 Thursday 40
- 8/10/2007 Friday 40
- 8/11/2007 Saturday 66
- 8/12/2007 Sunday 39
- 8/13/2007 Monday 47
- 8/14/2007 Tuesday 38
- 8/15/2007 Wednesday 39
- 8/16/2007 Thursday 91
- 8/17/2007 Friday 34
- 8/18/2007 Saturday 30
- 8/19/2007 Sunday 43
- 8/20/2007 Monday 78
- 8/21/2007 Tuesday 55
- Total Page Views 916
Date Day Unique Visits
- 8/1/2007 Wednesday 14
- 8/2/2007 Thursday 20
- 8/3/2007 Friday 19
- 8/4/2007 Saturday 25
- 8/5/2007 Sunday 27
- 8/6/2007 Monday 26
- 8/7/2007 Tuesday 31
- 8/8/2007 Wednesday 37
- 8/9/2007 Thursday 30
- 8/10/2007 Friday 27
- 8/11/2007 Saturday 47
- 8/12/2007 Sunday 28
- 8/13/2007 Monday 37
- 8/14/2007 Tuesday 33
- 8/15/2007 Wednesday 28
- 8/16/2007 Thursday 45
- 8/17/2007 Friday 25
- 8/18/2007 Saturday 26
- 8/19/2007 Sunday 31
- 8/20/2007 Monday 53
- 8/21/2007 Tuesday 41
- Total Unique Visits 650
Rank Referrer Domains Unique Visits %
- 1 google.com 84 42.21%
- 2 yahoo.com 16 8.04%
- 3 google.ca 15 7.54%
- 4 wikipedia.org 15 7.54%
- etc...CoreyArthurs 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a poor article, but that is not a reason for deleting it. It is not clear if it is about a website or a printed magazine. If the latter, there ought to be an indication of its circulation, and somethign about its general scope. If it is a printed magazine, I would have thought that would be sufficient as a source. However if it is only a website and gets under 50 visits per day, I would have thought it was NN and should be deleted. At present the articel is distinctly like spammy advertising, which is also grounds for deletion. Accordingly, the authors need greatly to improve it if it is to survive. Peterkingiron 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I'm disinclined to believe this meets WP:N And, seriously, <100 hits per day is not an impressive web total. CoreyArthurs (talk · contribs) has also created Matt Johnson (rapper) & Hood Apparel in what appears to be a marketing effort for Matt Johnson & his various endeavors. — Scientizzle 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm even more convinced that this is a coordinated attempt at advertising. The article Matt Johnson (rapper) had a previous incarnation as Funky J, deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funky J . That article, and its companion Loco Gringo, was created by KultureNews (talk · contribs) & HoodApparel (talk · contribs). I'd recommend salting these articles as this/these editor(s) are clearly here only for advertising purposes. — Scientizzle 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: CoreyArthurs asked me to look at this article. I removed the massive quotations, which were in no sense encyclopedic. Sorry, folks, 40-50 unique visits a day does not argue for notability: I operate a crisis resource web site that gets far more hits than that, and has been the subject of several articles in the mainstream press, and I'd still never even consider saying it merited a Wikipedia article. But, at least for now, I'm not voting. The question is whether there is some (other) evidence of notability. Has this site been written about or quoted in other, clearly major publications? Is it the subject of any academic work? Has it broken stories later picked up by other news sources? If none of these, are there people on its staff who clearly meet notability criteria in their own right? If the answer to some of these is yes, then there may be a reason to save this even if its traffic is light. But, if not, sorry. Notability first, encyclopedia article after. - Jmabel | Talk 07:53, 24 August 2007 (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.
