Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Kids Rock

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; Google News finds me one 2003 piece from the Ocala Star-Banner and a number of pieces mentioning it in passing as the recipient of funds, which isn't really substantial coverage of the organisation. Article is also flagrantly promotional in tone. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Two hits in GBooks don't do much: here's a directory-style entry, and here David Byrne spends two paragraphs on it, the most significant coverage I was able to find. I am suspicious of the history, particularly this edit, which reads like an absolute copyvio (of the promotional kind), but I cannot find a source for it (and it's six years old). The article was created by an SPA, and I have doubts about some of the other contributors' objectivity; I just rolled back what I could of Pianofan1's work, all of which is to promote the club. Anyway, that's not so important now: delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: a SPA with a familiar name from the article, no less. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-reasoned. Delete Ringbang (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:08, 23 January 2014 (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.