Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Wimmer Presents


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈  12:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Danny Wimmer Presents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. I tagged this as a A7/G11, but it was removed by another editor. The creator of this article and of Danny Wimmer is a paid intern working for the company. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean it should be deleted, but it explains some of the promotional tone of the article. As far as I can tell, the sources in the article are all primary sources or press releases. Still,I have no real stake in this discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that this service is provided for information and encyclopedic use only. That said, it is not my intention to promote any product, message, festival, subsidiary, or brand whatsoever. I am a paid intern representing Danny Wimmer Presents and Danny Wimmer; however it is my clear intention to provide only information regarding the history and present projects of the company such as Rock on the Range and Carolina Rebellion. I will continue to monitor and make sure that the language I use is completely objective as to not promote any feature or product offered by the company. The idea is that Danny Wimmer Presents is given the ability to have availability on Wikipedia just as any other promotional company does, such as AEG Live and Live Nation. Danny Wimmer Presents will not include seemingly biased information and if someone in the community thinks that this information exists on the page, I would hope that an edit suggestion would be added to the talk page instead of a nomination to delete the page. I am happy to work with the community to edit out any information seen as biased, subjective, or promotional.

Thank you

(Spuderman (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Spuderman left a message on my talk page seeking advice.  I did a search for Danny Wimmer Presents  before I responded,  and I should have done the same before I weighed in here with a delete.
 * The article needs a serious rewrite, but the company appears to meet GNG: New York Times, an interview with some editorial in Pollstar, the primary trade for the touring/concert industry, the Sacramento Business Journal and the Sacramento Bee. I think I would find more references if I had the time to dig deeper.
 * Spuderman has disclosed his COI on his user page. Let's WP:USERFY this - I will suggest he work on the article/references and submit it through AfC with another disclosure in the edit summary.JSFarman (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best for now as there's still not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister   talk  21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree Danny Wimmer should have been deleted, but the New York Times, Sacramento Business Journal and Sacramento Bee sources that JSFarman linked to seem to establish notability for Danny Wimmer Presents per GNG and NCORP. —me_and 14:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I believe with established references from the New York Times, Sacramento Bee and Pollstar, notability is not what is now being questioned, but rather the correct sourcing, documentation and objectivity of the article. I would agree that it is a good idea to WP:USERFY this to be worked on until it is ready to be submitted to an administrator for approval. I want to work with the community to make sure content that is making it to article space is purely neutral and objective. (Spuderman (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep because of the sources identified by . Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee establishes notability, and the article should be improved instead of being deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.