Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep South Entertainment


 * 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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 14:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deep South Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Deprodded with rationale of "A record company is judged by what notable artists it has discovered, and many blue links are there." However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article only says that they "handl[ed] over the years careers" of the artists, but this incredibly vague claim is "supported" by references to those artists' websites, none of which mention Deep South in any way. Searching the artists' names + Deep South Entertainment found no substantial sources at all.

Furthermore, it is not a record label but a management firm. The article has been heavily refbombed with press releases, primary sources and local tangential mentions but nothing of substance. A search in Google News turned up only press releases. Finally, the article was made by an SPA whose name has Deep South in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete First, I strongly agree that simply being associated with major acts does not constitute notability. A major recording act has a huge number of music business entities that touch on its business. They can't all be automatically notable. Secondly, current sourcing is clearly insufficient for any argument towards notability. Third, I can't find anything better. Major music business entities that have contributed significant, notable accomplishments to the development or success of major recording artists simply do not fly under the radar like this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Consider: Hi. I'm an employee at Deep South Entertainment in Raleigh, North Carolina. As a company, it is our intention to comply with wikipedia's guidelines regarding our presence on wikipedia. At the moment, it seems that we could make some changes to ensure compliance going forward.

In regard to the "notability" concerns mentioned, we would be happy to distinguish between current and former clients to provide a sense of clarity into the company's past and present affiliations. As for our description as a "Record Label" or "Management Firm", we do not take issue with changing the terminology in the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.222.154 (talk • contribs)
 * Appreciate the forthrightness and willingness to help improve the article. Let me just clarify what's really needed. We need to see some evidence of independent, reliable coverage of DSE. Basically, any third-party coverage in a reliable source (magazine, newspaper, online or offline, whatever). The coverage should ideally be significant -- that is, more than a passing mention. In other words, an article covering one of your artists that merely mentions "They are represented by Deep South Entertainment" without discussing your company won't necessarily help. Hope that helps, and trust me that there are people who will also look for sources on your behalf! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's a related article for deletion discussion occurring for the Raleigh Downtown Live article, located here: Articles for deletion/Raleigh Downtown Live. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep They have a lot of notable bands they discovered and manage, so they are notable. Notability is based on accomplishments.  You don't need to find coverage to prove to you they have done something notable, when you can just use common sense.   D r e a m Focus  15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, common sense is not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policies. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a policy. The rules exist for a purpose.  Wikipedia is not a moot court with strict rules.  See WP:BUREAUCRACY.   D r e a m Focus  17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you just cite "ignore all rules" and then in the very next sentence write "the rules exist for a purpose"? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also it is SPAMish since it is created by what is essentially an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * merge and keep Although the concert series seems to have been their major production, since it is notable in its own right, though just barely, they are notable for other things also, this is the article to use,with a redirect from the other. It was folly to try to write two articles when notability is borderline for either, a promotional practice which often attracts unfavorable attention. Although I agree with alan that it;'s still Spammish, that's just a matter of editing. Another proof that as a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without WP:Conflict of Interest. Despite that, we should keep what we can rescue of their work.   DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to where? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he is referring to Articles for deletion/Raleigh Downtown Live.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll adopt the curious position -- is this allowed? -- of being fine with merging content from this article to the Raleigh Downtown Live article if the latter is kept. While I don't think the article on the concert series should be kept, either, it's got a much better case for notability than the article on Deep South Entertainment. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete same reasons as the closely-related Raleigh Downtown Live: lack of coverage. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * delete complete lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - What about this source? Menconi, David. "Deep South Goes North." The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) September 5, 2000: 1E, 3E. Anyone have access to it? Northamerica1000(talk) 02:13, 6 May 2012 (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.