Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Brands


 * 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. Courcelles 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cult Brands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like an essay. Mattg82 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete bollocks that's selling something: These are the days when the relationship between brands and their customers has become much more complex. For one thing, consumers simply know more than they used to. A customer spurned is a customer lost. Some brands realise this phenomenon wherein the customers have a shared consciousness that connects members to the brands and one another. They uphold rituals and traditions that involve public greeting to recognize and acknowledge fellow Brand Lovers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy for rework. I disagree it's selling something (The notion that cult brands exist? Bah, just check Apple. . The German Wikipedia article de:Kultmarke has a good number of other references). But there's definitely spades of unsourced opinion in the English article, like in the paragraph cited above. It would take a complete rewrite to make it follow the main pillars of WP:V and NPOV. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, there was bit of spam, which I deleted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite or Delete - If commercial promotions are noteworthy, which I dispute, the topic of this article is even more noteworthy, which I regret. The consensus elsewhere retains pages describing even the most trivial commercial promotions, so this page documenting world-scale mega-promotions should be preserved also. However, nothing good can be said about the current article, and its vanished creator, who never did anything else in Wikipedia, is unlikely to come to its rescue. Ornithikos (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a notable topic, with ample news results talking about it. The article would need to be rewritten.  If it is deleted, please don't salt it or anything to keep it from being recreated by someone who wants to take the time to do something with it.  Maybe just reduce it to a simple stub.   D r e a m Focus  03:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Immediately as Copyright Violation - in looking up the material from this article, it is completely a word-for-word ripoff from many sites, which all seem to be spam-type sites. Having on Wikipedia seems like an attempt to reinforce the ranking of these spam sites. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MIRRORS? There are many spam sites that use chunks of Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was created on 06:31, 9 February 2010. It had the first sentence "These are the days when the relationship between brands and their customers has become" at that time.  I searched for that on Google and found many articles created AFTER that time period that used it.  The definition section is perhaps a copyright violation, it copying it from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.    D r e a m Focus  18:37, 22 August 2011 (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.