Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulspazm


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Soulspazm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the current bombardment of sources just verify they were the releasing label for an album. The only exception is a press release. There are none that give the company any depth of independent coverage. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Articles for deletion/James Drew, the company's manager, is also nominated for deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- it seems the article exists as an attempt at self-promotion and the prime contributor clearly has a a WP:COI in doing so. I too could not find any evidence of serious notability TF92 (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: References/sources are all "this happened" and "that guy was there," but none are about the digital distributor/record label per se. This is aside from whether the sources can be considered reliable and independent. Given the fact that the label is in the business of increasing its online profile, the promotional nature of the article hurts assumptions of good faith. Fails music/corporation notability guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - My searches found results here and here but nothing significant and in-depth about this and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister   talk  18:19, 14 June 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.