Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GP 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. Consensus is it is not notable. Appreciate Chubbles' argument, and bias is certainly an issue to be contended with, project wide. However, without sourcing to back it up, there isn't an article to be had. If anyone wants this to work on in Draft to find and add sourcing, feel free to ping me. I don't see that happening with another week's relist/ Star   Mississippi  03:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

GP Records

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage about the record label and why it is notable Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label, and illustrates quite well why that guideline says what it says. This article is basically a difficult-to-source but easy-to-populate list, a collation of artists with a noteworthy common feature, and one that would probably be trivial to source if it were American rather than Indonesian. That it is so poorly sourced, I am convinced, is more to do with the WP:BIAS of our contributors and their skill sets than anything about the label itself. I'd change my vote if Indonesian contributors told me this was just a promo puff piece; something tells me that won't happen. Chubbles (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is nothing in WP:MUSIC that specifically relates to record labels. I am presuming that is inferring to the comment in the guidelines relating to artists having released two or more albums on an important indie label (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). This does not state that this is the criteria for a record label to be considered notable. The key requirement is whether the record label satisfies the criteria under WP:COMPANY - firstly "no company or organization is considered inherently notable" and secondly "A company is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." The criteria which apply are no different from those under WP:GNG, in that it needs to be demonstrated that there is significant coverage (about the company or record label in this case) in multiple independent secondary sources. The only reference provided doesn't even mention GP Records but rather relates to the acquisition of EMI Recorded Music by the Universal Music Group. The article states the label was formed as a business opportunity resulting from this transaction but provides no proof - clearly original research. Unfortunately a search of GP Records only provides results relating to medical records, however if you add Indonesia to your search apart from the label's website the rest are hits on social media websites (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Spotify etc) none of which are considered reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from primary sources there is no evidence that the majority of the artists listed on the label's rooster are actually signed to GP Records. Dan arndt (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, I guess WP:NMUSIC does indeed define a "more important indie label" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * then if that is the case there needs to be reliable independent secondary sources that prove that. I've searched and can't find any. As it stands it is all original research. Dan arndt (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It may very well have described what it means by a "more important indie label" but only in the context of defining the criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles. It certainly wasn't intended to act as the entire criteria by which labels are evaluated for notability. Since it is a commercial organization, that falls to WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable . I can't find reliable sources through Google search for it. Mommmyy (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article relies entirely on primary sourcing. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:23, 6 December 2021 (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.