Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiductions

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiductions[edit]

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

Non-notable website. The only actually sourced material is about a TV show and not the subject. Can't find any independent coverage whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am adding the information you would like up there, please do not delete this page. Give me 2 hours and i will have all the info you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and possibly speedy delete Non notable website and heavily WP:COI. Blatantly promotional and borderline for CSD G11. Even if this turned out to be notable, WP:NUKE would apply. Safiel (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external sources and would like to know anything else you need me to change. Also I do not know any of the Kiductions Team, and is very weird you think that to be honest. Also they work with big people, Jamal Edwards MBE, MBE is an award from the Queen of England and is a big achievement and i do not understand why you want to delete this page. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Should of course have been speedily deleted. I am voting here instead of immediately deleting it so that we have a more accessible record of why such articles are not suitable for Wikipedia, and to provide the creator with an opportunity to address the issues and rewrite it from a neutral point of view. Note also that notability is not inherited irrspective of how many knighthoods have worked on the project. Supportkiductions has been warned about COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a neutral point of view?

And which sections on the page have problems so I can rewrite with advice from you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jblood (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Kolbasz (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this not have neutral point of view?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jblood (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2016 (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.