Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery Records Inc.


 * 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. Relisting is unlikely to generate notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Gallery Records Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Are they notable? Yet? I don't think so and the text doesn't seem to support the notion... delete - UtherSRG (talk) UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Comprehensively fails WP:COMPANY. It has zero independent coverage in reliable sources, apart from a brief mention in La Provincia di Como, the local newspaper in Como, Italy, the hometown of Simone Tomassini, a partner in the company and its only notable (although barely so) artist. The rest of the links in the "Press" section are to self-published, blog-like Italian sites with press-releases and publicity "interviews" with Tomassini and another singer, both of whose records are being released this month. Even there, the label gets only a brief or no mention See also WP:MUSICBIO re "a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." Despite the claims in the article, there is no evidence that this company was founded in 2006. Its releases started in late 2010 and there is no evidence it existed before then. Their web site is still under construction. This article is a piece of blatant self-promotion and the plethora of red links in the article promises more to come. Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dont delete we are still in the process of editing. The philosophy behind the company is different from any approach seen on the market, being completely for the musicians and against the majors. And is thanks to the fact that a well known singer is involved that we will have the possibility to be the change that the music industry needs in order to support musicians and not just executives from the majors. Please give us the chance to explain it.Simonetarantino (talk) 9:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Vanity article to promote the company. Keb25 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a few weeks - I'm in favor of giving them 1-2 weeks to clearly explain notability, as they are new to Wikipedia authoring. If they can dig up some non-local press coverage, or otherwise explain why they are notable, then keep. If they ignore this, or just add marketing filler, then delete. But just because they didn't understand about notability does not mean they should be immediately slammed down. Wxidea (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (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.