Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Music Publishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Water Music Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Other than their catalog/shop links most current sources do not verify claims. None provide significant independent coverage of Water Music Publishing. Article claims awards for the company that are their clients awards. Notability is not inherited from clients. Current article is a textbook example of using bombardment to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. That huge list of references are for the most part primary sources. For the rest, I can't even find a mention of Water Music in them much less significant coverage, and that's not even addressing the issue of whether those soruces are suitable for establishing notability, which they don't. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The way it appears, notable names, including the Emmys, were stuck in there to make it look notable while it is not. Dew Kane (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.