Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground following

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Underground following

Underground following (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Little more than a dicdef coupled with a dash of original research. Prod removed by author without comment. JuJube (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anturiaethwr (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - removal of PROD without comment shows WP:COI. We also already have cult following.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This also repeats what we have at cult following and cult classic. ie, the example of Blair Witch Project is by no means underground. It was an independent film with a cult following that made $248,000,000. That's not really underground is it? Also, i'd propose a delete of two other dicdef articles created by the same author; Breakthrough album and revolving lineup Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:DICDEF, with no potential to expand beyond a dicdef except by becoming a WP:COATRACK for "my favorite movies and bands" type lists. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to underground culture, perhaps? So Awesome (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

or cult following, which would make more sense Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:30, 21 April 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.