Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eulita Music Group


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Eulita Music Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Only claim to fame is the hiring of a producer with a few notable associations; I don't see how that fulfills WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Created by a paid editor. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  keep The above mentioned reason for deletion is in correct, as there are sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The only reason above given for deletion is "the claim to fame is the hired producer" ( Such words from the requesting party for deletion are in direct conflict with wikipedia as stated "it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject"),with no regard to the very famous Susie Field of the Field family that founded Interescope Records. The Largest selling Record label to date. Another example is the labels association with Sullen Clothing which has received press around the world and is currently one of the largest alternative life style clothing companies in the world. To add to the argument if the company was not note worthy they would have never been featured world wide by iTunes which is very prestiges as no money can buy such placement with iTunes. Not including the artist that have been release by said label, it may be justified that, not enough research was done by the requesting party for deletion on the subject. This is an example of a Independent Record label that has a similar page with less sources and back round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_Records that has survived the wikipedia requirements, it would be a shame to see subjective and Bias calls for deletion. (Kinetic909 (talk)) Thank you. — Kinetic909 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The above mentioned reason for deletion is correct. MisterUnit (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  keep This seem like a witch hunt and very one sided, with no real reason for deletion, there are sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I have heard of most of the artist as well as the label. The "opinion " of the above case for deletion show very clearly that it is uneducated in the matter of independent record labels in the US. Just because you havent heard of it does not make the request legit. (Ruscal84 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Ruscal84 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing admin: Ruscal84 has been blocked as a blatant sockpuppet of Kinetic909. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete unless more/better references can be found. The only reference of any consequence provided for Eulita is minor coverage in the Orange County Business Journal. Some of the active players may be notable themselves, but notability is not inherited, and I assume that the label's mention for an itunes album is not significant. Celtechm (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the references go in to any depth about Eulita, with one not mentioning them and seemingly only there to assert notability by association. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Its to bad that all these folks have to do is dispute an obvious legit company and people, as stated above about depth it states " multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Which has been done many times within the post, as you all are investigating the legitimacy of the article it should be noted that the original accuser OhNoItsJamie clearly states that he is here for the sole purpose of deleting articles as quoted " I resumed deleting articles and taking bribes" how is this proper Wikipedia behavior? It violates many Wikipedia rules... Meaning that this is indeed a incorrect call for deletion based on nothing but the ability to call other editors to action against this post, all rules and regulations have been followed and proven including the initial concern with sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Its nice to see that one editor see's the need for a continued conversation regarding the topic as he must see no clear cut cause for deletion.. thank you Mr. Stradivarius — Kinetic909 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are only allowed to !vote once; accordingly I have struck your duplicate !vote. Also, you clearly have no sense of humour if you think the statements on OhNoitsJamie's userpage are in any way serious. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 4 September 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.