Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulture News


 * 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)

Kulture News

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

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)

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
 * DO NOT DELETE!!! Problems have been fixed reliable sources and notability proof is set forth herein.
 * 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 Rank  Referrer Domains   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
 * 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. has also created Matt Johnson (rapper) & Hood Apparel in what appears to be a marketing effort for Matt Johnson & his various endeavors. &mdash; 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 Articles for deletion/Funky J . That article, and its companion Loco Gringo, was created by & . I'd recommend salting these articles as this/these editor(s) are clearly here only for advertising purposes. &mdash; 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.