Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SonicScoop

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. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no considerably minimal signs of better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing for this troubled article. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Website article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are an incidental mention and a non-RS corp site. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2016 (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.