Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Budd Management

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 Deleted by Blueboy96 , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for deletion rationale. Blueboy 96 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Budd Management[edit]

Non notable company, article created by subject and includes autobiography. Paste (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not asserting notability. The quite blatant conflict of interest does not help and could (possibly) influence a veer towards speedying this... but unfortunately I think the way it's worded avoids that. one brave monkey 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:notability and WP:advertising. Hairy Perry 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spam-a-riffic!! MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has now removed AfD template. Paste (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:advertising. JamesBurns (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody kindly please explain what we need to do to not get this page deleted. We are very happy to follow the Wikipedia rules but are not sure what we are doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you but what in particular have we done wrong, which part do we need to change? I have removed all opinions and added lots of references. However, there are not too many external quotes to use. But we are Europe's biggest record producer management company so I do believe we deserve to be on here. But please tell us what we need to change. I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite the above protests there is no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27th November 2009[edit]

Ok, I have made a number of additions to the references section, in fact I have added 8 taking the total of third party references to 10. That's 10 external references from sites not involved with SBM. What else do I need to do please to keep this page? Stephen Budd Management (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Obvious COI issues too. McWomble (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "References" consist largely of advertorials, self-published sources and insider industry journals. The article reeks of COI and self-promotion. WWGB (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts and self-published sources obviously aren't indepdent, but what's wrong with industry journals? Please remember, COI itself is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:18, 29 November 2008 (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.