Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectrum Culture (2nd nomination)

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. czar 05:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This previously consensus-deleted article on a website has been recreated, sourced entirely to its own About section and a couple non-RS blogs (e.g. the waffle recipe blog wafflewindow.com). A WP:BEFORE on Google News fails to find anything more than fleeting references (e.g. mention of the site in a list of writer credits in bylines, etc.) and nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The site purports to have several notable writers, however, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete.

Previous discussions: 2009-06 (closed as ✗ delete)

Related discussions: 2019-11 Funland (album) (closed as ✓ keep)

Logs: 2009-06 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed it is monosourced and seems a touch puffed and promotional. I wasn't able to find meaningful sources for it online with ease and seems unnoteworthy. It's questionable that it was undeleted and not improved at all, probably because it can't be. Tautomers (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2021 (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.