Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SomaTone Productions


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

SomaTone Productions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No in-line refs, history of edits from a banned (clearly COI) user Somatone, just an unsourced credit list. Looks like more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. --Salvidrim! T·C 16:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Zero inline references, all of the "references" are just a list of bare links, most of which are dead, go to home pages (with no content on this subject) of other websites, or one is to somebody's restricted persona page on a job site or something like that.  The "content" is just a list of companies which the editor claims that that the subject is "contracted with" or product which the editor claims contain content from this company.  Looks like a brazen, vague and badly done attempt at COI promotion.  North8000 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article from a userpage that was abandoned. I did not (to my regret) check the refs, but did trim out some obviously improper material. I actually created it to see if it would stand on its own, as we often do have overly promotional articles that are despite that still notable. Unless someone can find really good sources, i am fine with deletion. I tend to be an inclusionist, and decided to give this company a chance here. I have no great insight into how notable they really are. I hope no one thinks of me as engaged in COI promotion, as i had not even heard of them until i found the user page. what i should have done before creating it, is find possible refs: is somewhat marginal as a source (the site does have its own article stub here), but does state the companies significance in the field, and may count as a third party ref (assuming the site and the company arent friends). But, thats all i could find. Their proximity to Pixar and other computer companies hasnt given them much coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the company might actually be notable (if proper research was done), but the article, as it is right now, does strictly nothing to establish that -- in fact, in my eye, it does the opposite.  --Salvidrim!  T·C 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed out dead refs, added their IMDB pages (under 2 company name variants). not much left. i will note they were mentioned in 6 WP articles before i created it, all linked to it right now. Yes, they may be notable, and since this info can easily be recreated if proven notable at a later date, its not a huge loss if deleted now.this deletion discussion describes the company as notable in passing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that discussion, but they present no evidence that this is notable either. --Salvidrim!  T·C 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, of course. PS thanks for your civility here, I could have seen someone tearing me a new one for this decision:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* I know it's done in good faith and that you're technically not the author. :)  --Salvidrim!  T·C 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - they do seem to have received some coverage from semi-reliable sources: see (linked above),, . This is a marginal case though, and I can't say we'd really miss this article if it was deleted. Robofish (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2011 (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.