Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperCity


 * 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   procedural close. Article reverted to original subject Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SuperCity

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Blatantly promotional advertisement for band's website. Easily violates website notability guidelines because the site itself has not been discussed by third-party sources, and the references given in the article are either social networking, band promos, or only mention the website in passing. The existence of the site could maybe be mentioned briefly at McFly but even then, notability is doubtful. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - also, in recent days someone over-wrote an existing article about a Mexican retail store of the same name and created the current article about the website. Should the whole thing be reverted? -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect this spam to the band, this site shows no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommendation - my nomination already counts for a "delete" vote, and so be it, but I have since looked at the history of the "SuperCity" WP namespace more closely. From an administrative standpoint, I'd like to raise the possibility of reverting the article to this version, when it was about something else and before it was so rudely overwritten. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 15 November 2010 (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.