Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo music blog


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Echo music blog

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's references do not talk about the subject at hand and has facts and stats that can't be verified but a self publication of the author who happens to be the owner of the site so i dont think it meets the notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icem4k (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. There are several music blogs called "Echo" online, such as the music blog of the Liverpool Echo newspaper, etc. No significant coverage of this one in WP:RS online, and no indication of the notability of the awards won. Highly promotional at the moment, and edit history strongly suggests sockpuppetry. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NWEB. It's just a blog – taking out the sources from the blog itself, and the citations linked to Alexa and Feedspot which are just web ranking listings, not a single one of the other sources actually mentions the blog anywhere or verifies any of the claims regarding its standing. Its Facebook page has 224 followers and its Twitter site a whopping 98 followers. No evidence whatsoever of notability, and pure WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A long way below the standard required for notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly promotional or as Wikipedia says Unambiguous advertising or promotion. ChaloNiZambia (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nomination was not about the article being promotional, but about its WP:Notability. A promotional article can be fixed, rather than deleted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Mighty Glen Boss why was this sandbox deleted i say again SANDBOX Mukandii. It was deleted for (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) why wasn't it just fixed, rather than be deleted. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is explained at WP:CSD: I'm guessing the sandbox needed a complete rewrite, although I can't see its content. It's not uncommon to see companies pasting their brochures verbatim to Wikipedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * aren't Alexa and Feedspot websites? your reasons are not making any sense. Listen in Zambia, blogging is a new thing so don't expect a blog to be mentioned in the BBC article just like that or have a citation from MTV. I guess all i am trying to say is we use what we could find. You people are busy degrading the blog and yet you have the same articles with less sources and promotional in nature.I think its high time we started improving articles and not nominating for deletion even whats not supposed to just because you didn't write it. And how can one surely compare ECHOMUSICBLOG to Liverpool Echo?Megatech15 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2018 (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.