Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konde Music Worldwide


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Konde Music Worldwide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Covert UPE WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable organization that satisfies WP:NCORP, NCORP is satisfied when an organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search I performed only reveals an abundance of press releases and announcements but the organization per se is hardly ever discussed with in-depth WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment I'm not going to !vote at this point since there are sources and I'm not familiar with the ones used. A whole lot of record label pages look like this. I've got one on AfD myself called Ebullition Records. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I’m familiar with the sources & I can assure you without an iota of doubt that the sources are either paid for, or outright unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment No a whole lot of record label pages have one source, and that is the website of the subject. This is way above par for the course for records labels. I have my doubts that it meets our quite stringent guidelines on notability for institutions, organizations and companies, but it is way above the standard for record label pages. To be fair, record label pages on average are the worst source pages we have of all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Record labels are supposed to be evaluated under NCORP/NORG. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - My stance is unchanged, this is a non-notable article created for the sole purpose of gaming the system by creating this article, a loophole is created for criterions #5 and #6 whereby a plausible notability argument could be made in the case of a non notable musician masquerading as one. Believe it or not guys people are making a living off UPE as it is big bucks here in Africa. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, indeed looks like WP:ARTSPAM, WP:BEFORE does not show up sigcov at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Iflaq  (talk) 15:12, 10 May 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.