Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Farandula Records

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable. The author of this article also seems to have a COI with the label, as they have also created the article for Aiona Santana (currently up for deletion) and also the Latin Music Awards (basically, IMO, a pay-to-win award ceremony which is also non-notable). The label has received coverage, but these articles mostly look like PR, paid-for articles. I'm beginning to think the author is being paid or strongly motivated to create these articles. Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a second account,, who has uploaded on Commons (see talk page) some of the images has used to illustrate these articles. Too much of a coincidence?
 * Chucho has created articles about people of dubious notability, some of which have been already deleted. For example, Rafael McGuire was nominated for deletion (see here) and it was pointed out "Sources appear to be puff pieces/paid PR". Same applies here. Bedivere (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A third user,, has uploaded some obviously PR photos of artists related to Paisclo Solutions Corp (whose deleted article was also created by Chucho). Guaira uploaded on 19 February File:B Martin 3.png, especially for an article created three days earlier by Chucho (B Martin, also of dubious notability). Perhaps this should be reported somewhere else, but I'm leaving it up here for now for commenters to analyze. --Bedivere (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're good at investigating, but slander is terrible. You don't have proof of what you're saying, so if you want references, I'll look for them for you, if you want them to be from important press, I'll look for them too; now, if you say that these notes have no value because they have been paid, find me an invoice, or evidence that the press releases are paid, find me evidence that by placing the name of the articles on Google, you do not return no results.
 * You know that they are articles that are not perfect, but they pass, in addition, they had already been reviewed and approved. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They were reviewed? Good. Does that make them immune from being nominated for deletion? Nope. Points were made and the community will now decide. Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you have repeatedly done here and in another nomination. One more and you get a report. Bedivere (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies,  and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, sources in the article are promo, not SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  12:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this blatant attempt at advertising. There is nothing to support notability there. For quite some time now, it has been decided that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2023 (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.