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. Punkmorten (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scunt[edit]

Contested prod for a non notable organisation. The 'references' provided are not reliable sources and at least one, the claimed Stephen Fry discussion, is a misrepresentation. Despite searching, I coud find no sources to provide verification or notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I originally tagged this with 'unverified claims' it was because I could find no references to the awards allegedly won or that it was the second highest circulated satirical publication in the UK. Even then I felt I was being overly optimistic about Scunt and seriously considered it for A7 Speedy Deletion then. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I am from the UK and I have never heard of it. The references are useless, and in one case blatantly disingenuous. Googling gives me no hope that it has a high profile, or much of a profile at all. I find much of it suspicious. Nothing in Google News to corroborate the alleged spat with Morrissey[1], for example. What does circulation mean when it is a website not a magazine? 19 employees financed from selling T-Shirts?[2] I strongly suspect not! This seems to be a highly fictionalised account written by an author who registered solely to create the article and has not been seen since. I have tagged it as disputed. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2009 (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.