Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kloodin

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. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kloodin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Speedy deletion contested, but there is in fact no real claim to notability/significance in the article, and there are no independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. A social media site that is proud of its four regular users, and which has no coverage except in its own press releases. Tempted to go all 'rogue admin' and delete this right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haha, per TenOfAllTrades. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The social networking site is currently the only active article based neworking site from USA that has such a large user base. Also the four user talked in the page have been edited to its administrators.--Hihimanshu70 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see; you have a clear, undisclosed conflict of interest. Hihimanshu70 is being paid to create these spammy articles about spammy, otherwise-non-notable companies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Nothing notable about this site. Andrew³²⁷ 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice, neat article, but too soon.--Auric talk 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatantly promotional paid article (the client brags about this article on the author's website linked above) about totally non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - advertisement masquerading as an article. Why was it not G11'd? ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid editing contract is here [1]. Pure WP:PROMO with no established notability. Qworty (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with it being a paid editing job, I'm perfectly okay with editors writing stuff for money if others wish to pay them (no I'm not a paid editor) as long as they stick to the guidelines and policies. This article just fails notability and is very advertising orientated. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.