Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon Collective


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Icon Collective

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm four pages deep into Google and cannot find any serious mention of Icon Collective other than "so-and-so graduated from Icon Collective" or "they hope to attend." It definitely exists, but seemingly only as a resume-builder for DJs. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I would like to argue to keep the article included. Icon Collective has been covered by big media outlets in the industry such as YourEDM, insomniac and Nest HQ. Each of these outlets are national and have readership in the thousands. The alumni are mentioned often in press, but for a private music school, a lot of the academic achievements are reflected in the careers of the alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahBhorntus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No extensive coverage, therefore non-notable per WP:GNG; this is not even considering the advertorial nature of the article itself, which seeks to promote the place. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of school definitely needs reliable 3rd party sources to even hint at being notable. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister   talk  03:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No substantial coverage to show it meets WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.