Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soundwalk Collective

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwalk Collective (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)

There are two problems with this article. The first, which is not in itself a deletion reason, is a long history of sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F1F2F2/Archive with particular reference to User:Sonnenalle44, which simply means Soundwalk. See also Draft:Stephan Crasneanscki. The second is notability. The collective is simply not notable. A Google search finds many non-independent listings of Soundwalk Collective, especially of Amazon and YouTube, and listings of Patti Smith, who is notable but is not inherited. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - they have won awards, had some coverage and collaborated with well-known musicians - while none of this is major under WP:BAND, it is enough to establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The awards are under the umbrella of the International Awards Group, LLC, which is not notable; if anyone cares to dig deep past the hyperbole on their website [1] you'll see their purpose is primarily as a marketing and promotion service for members. The "coverage" can be deceptive when one sees the links to New York Times or Village Voice, but clicks on the links reveal the subject to merely be among the exhibiting vendors at various events. It is not significant coverage. The involvement of notable names with this collective, as pointed out, fails per WP:NOTINHERIT, as any coverage/and or recognition is due to the notable person and not specifically about the collective beyond perhaps a namecheck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2019 (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.