Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Crush

: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. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Hyper Crush]]=

:{{la|Hyper Crush}} ([{{fullurl:Hyper Crush|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Crush}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Unsigned band with one record: no reviews, haven't hit the charts, no other claims to notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was removed with comment: "e-prodded - there is independent coverage (which is tantamount to a review) - will add this coverage momentarily". However, the two sources added are one press statement[http://www.purevolume.com/hypercrush] (teh exact same text can be found on some 20 such sites[http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=%22On+May+1+the+group+released+the+party+anthem+of+all+time%22&start=10&sa=N&filter=0], and one wiki-page[http://www.clubplanet.com/Articles/2251/Video-Killed-the-Electro-Star-Hyper-Crush] (user added comments, not professional journalistic content). No reliable independent sources available. Fram (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: The "press statement" addition would not be considered a reliable source, but sufficient for WP:V. The "wiki-page" addition is a dated news article with a real-name by-line, which would count as a reliable source; it is not subject to editing by passers-by but is subject to appending of comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:The wiki-like one: have you tried clicking on the name of the "journalist"? This does not really look like what we would consider a reliable source, but more like a wiki or a blog with members placing an article. I may be mistaken here, but it does not convince me. Fram (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment - I agree with the blog-like assessment. As far as I can see, people are free to post up articles. There is no indication that there is editorial oversight or discernment over any of the articles. I really don't see that as a news article or review, and see it more as a bloglike article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 28 August 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.