Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound Spark Studios

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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Spark Studios

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by the company's owner, an obvious conflict of interest. What notability the company possesses seems to stem from the lawsuit more than anything else. Perhaps an article on the suit might be notable, but this one doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Spark Studios page has more of a right to exist than the 300 Entertainment page, which is entirely self-serving of 300 Entertainment. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two wrongs don't make a right - right? We should consider the nominated article for its own merits and shortcomings and not other articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm mostly just turning up Facebook, Yelp, and other social media listings for the company. Not notable. Fuzchia (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Please don't rely on Google's biased search algorithms to determine notability, particularly since Google is backing infringement of Sound Spark Studios. How is this not notability by a secondary source? Lyor Cohen and Google noticed Sound Spark Studios as a competitor. For this reason, the public ought to be able to read about how Sound Spark Studios actually came to be and what it's doing. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Take it to the press, then? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we're not reporters. Wikipedia's volunteers use verifiable, reliable sources to create a record of things of note. I looked up your studio on Bing too and got similar results, if that helps. Fuzchia (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yet there was no record of the notable Sound Spark Studios, so I created one. WP:ARTIST "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created ... a significant ... work." WP:ENT "The Entertainer ... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." i.e. the logo is significant and unique Secondary source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2014cv13861/164705/26 WP:ORIGIND "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Jeremysouthgate (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like a walled garden, though the fence has some holes now that I deleted the article on the person and his album. Both are not notable; the biggest claim to notability comes from this supposed lawsuit, content that I'm about to remove from this article as well. Note that "it is alleged"--yeah, on some website. The rest of the paragraph looks impressive (Billboard article etc.) but has nothing to do with the subject. Oh, primary documents related to court cases are really never acceptable here, and if they're intended to show that someone is in fact notable, the attempt is risible. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia's your walled garden with some holes where the articles could have been. Respect. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this: Wikipedia:Walled garden. Your two main articles basically had the same text anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobio of an aspiring musician, WP:COATRACKed at an article about a studio, no claim of notability in the article, fails WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG, WP:Walled garden and about every other guideline in the book. Kraxler (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2015 (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.