Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Company


 * 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   no consensus. The delete !votes do not take into consideration the new sources added, so the discussion cannot be closed as delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Soul Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

refs are blogs and self. advertising. would require a complete rewrite even if it was notable. borderline csd. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Sources don't demonstrate notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Last relist.
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)



Delete appears to be a vanity page by single-article editing user. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete Bulk of the article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE posting of album tracks, and the sources are a joke. Sixteen copies of the same forum post. I'm pretty sure forums are never a reliable source. The only other source is the company's own website, something I've always considered in bad taste when citing a business, and only independent sources can be used for assessing notability anyways. Oh wait, and their website isn't even running anymore. Angrysockhop ( talk to me ) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I restubbed the article. The real Korean name is "소울컴퍼니" not "소울 컴패니". If you search in Naver news portal there's about 220 results . Their dissolution got attention in major Korean newspapers like Korea Economic Daily. 61.18.170.159 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But if the only reliable sources are saying that the company broke up and not about anything they did, does that make them notable? I mean the whole article would be "This company fell apart, see refs".  It is almost like the break up event might be minor notable, but the company isn't.  I won't labor whatever the closing admin decides, and these refs do help and seem to be exactly what the IP says, but it still seems too weak.  Dennis Brown (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources don't just cover their breakup --- there's lots of reviews of their albums and concerts over the years. There is also a very detailed article in Kyunghyang Sinmun from 2008 which covers most of their history up to that point. I have expanded the article with citations to 16 newspaper articles which are directly devoted to the topic of this record label in general or their albums & concerts specifically. Thanks, 61.18.170.101 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I don't know if http://news.khan.co.kr is a reliable source or not. It looks somewhat bloggish but it obviously isn't a small site, so I genuinely don't know. If there are multiple sources that do pass RS, then obviously it would pass WP:N, the closing admin will have to decide that.  You must have done some serious digging to find these.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (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.