Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMH Records (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. Article talk page can always be restored upon request, if needed. czar ⨹   19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, we cleared a sock farm and a proper discussion can be held now. This was previously AFD'd. I think a redirect or delete is more appropriate as the only really notable achievement thus far is getting their name in papers by offering new contracts to people who turned them down. I am ok with the article if the community ends up deciding it is a notable subject but to me right now the subject fails Indepth coverage IMHO. User:78.26 did a fine job cleaning up the mess so their input would be greatly valued. For reference see Sockpuppet investigations/Pearljambandaid Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

*comment I'm staying anonymous because I don't want to be involved in the tarnishing of SMH Records. In all fairness, it seems as if there is a witch hunt for this label. The comment made by the user who said "the only really notable achievement thus far is getting their name in papers by offering new contracts to people who turned them down" isn't true by any means.
 * comment I'm still ruminating on this, leaning keep. We established that it met GNG last time, so the question is:  Do we delete articles about notable subjects developed by socks/SPAs?  Normally I'd say clearly no, but in this case the article was another prong in their "lets get noticed" campaign. Then again, they did get noticed by reliable sources.  By the way, if we keep the article, I'd add back that billboard mention, because it identifies the executives of the label, which is core subject information.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You gutted out the two MTV News stories, the Billboard stories, the XXL Magazine article, etc, etc. I've watched a war be waged by users here and it isn't right and lacks ethics. SMH Records is in the news right now for their albums with Crooked I, Slaughterhouse, DJ Whoo Kid, Sway Calloway and much more. There also is no information regarding the television show they are conducting that is gaining mass attention, specifically in the Hip-Hop world. The user has removed all this information. The main problem is one user here has went after this page from the beginning and still continues on with it. It seems to be a personal motive by the user to get rid of this page or at least to discredit it. I think the article should be kept. — User:JacoreyBarkley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC). User is a sock of Pearljambandaid Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * keep as it established notability. Lots of 411 on Google that is not here.


 * Weak keep. The article from The Source cited in the article, plus this one, and this one, plus this Billboard article give us the potential for at least borderline adequate sourcing. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:5P - Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. The return of the incessant attempt to abuse Wikipedia to promote Jonathan Hay (publicist) and associated subjects (Jonathan Hay Publicity, Hoopla Worldwide, Sabrina (pop singer), Audio Stepchild, Birdgang clothing, A Different Kind Of Christmas, Michael Barber (musician)) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 62. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Help stop the rot, delete spam to help preserve the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * Company lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources mentioned by Michig above; The Billboard article has no depth of coverage about SMH. The other 3, Brandon Robinson from The Source has been promoting SMH but that's one person, not multiple. And guess who wrote the article on Robinson, the same sockfarm that is responsible for the SMH one. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Duffbeerforme and various investigations regarding the original author and peripheries. No prejudice against re-creation (by editor without a COI).    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Just like the other accounts created by these sock puppets, article will never be remade except by them if given the chance. The only difference is now these sock puppets are tricking media outlets like billboard. If you read the article and then do research, the person hired for the position also hasn't worked at Universal in over 5 years. Not to hard to hire that person. HiLikePlanes (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — HiLikePlanes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Question: Looks like this will be deleted.  Can we copy the talk page of this article to the talk page of this deletion discussion?  Should the article be recreated for purposes legitimate or otherwise, I think it would be useful in either case.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:52, 5 December 2014 (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.