Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MARK GLADDEN (MG 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. Valley2 city ‽ 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MARK GLADDEN (MG Records)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Page was speedily deleted under A7 (Notability issues). Content cannot be verified through valid, non-trivial reliable sources, google search returns only blogs or self-submitted media sites, google news returns nothing. Last but not least, page author and major contributor appears to have a conflict of interests. MLauba (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Meets Sole Representation for City/Region Criteria - Sole record label and act representing misunderstood and marginalized new genre of Folktronica for Southern, New Mexico, specifically, the city of Las Cruces. No dispute of established  representation of genre/scene for region; lone editorial argument of No Significant Coverage is a misleading google search intentionally coded to show 90 + entries instead of highly relevant initial search returns (Folktronica genre is by-nature a modern internet-based meme with a valid internet-based medium of distribution; existing hegemonic Compact Disc medium in rapid decline); clear unprovoked bias and marginalization of folktronica genre by public referenced in posting.  Mgladden2 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —
 * Delete - I previously PRODed this article but was declined by creator. My original assessment still stands: Individual fails the notability criteria for WP:BIO. No significant coverage found. Article, apparently created by Gladden himself, bases notability on the non-notable record label MG Records which has no artists other than Gladden and two self-produced CDs sold on-line. Appears to be self-promotional WP:SPAM. — Cactus Writer |   needles  22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —  Cactus Writer |   needles  22:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant Coverage Found - Claim of "No Significant Coverage" is a google search intentionally modified by the editor to show entries after 90 on google instead of more relevant initial pages. Significant Coverage Found here provides true results showing growing presence and sources. Marginalization of folktronica and startup label MG Records soley representing the genre for Las Cruces, New Mexico is apparent by editors. Mgladden2 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —
 * Comment: Please Assume Good Faith and sign your comments using four tildes (~). The significant coverage you link to does not provide any sources qualifying as reliable sources. MLauba (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO by a country mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure of WP:BIO. I find it funny that the "significant coverage" link is a Google search. Tavix : Chat  01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is not mentioned in any reliable, third party sources, and is therefore not notable enough for inclusion here.  tempo di valse  [☎]  02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and billboards untenable criteria - Outdated claim that internet memes do not qualify as valid societal indicators. — 98.230.209.189 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 98.230.209.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion by a non-notable musician. The only mentions of this guy I can find are his own website and social networking/user-submitted-content sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. I searched the archives for both Las Cruces newspapers and neither had a single mention. The argument that folktronica is somehow inherently Internet-only is both fallacious and irrelevant: there are several well-known acts in the genre who have received offline notice (Beth Orton and Four Tet, to name a couple off the top of my head), and Internet-based sources can be valid...they just have to be reliable third-party sources. (I must admit, having a link in the article titled "reliable sources" leading to a Google search gave me a chuckle) &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sole representative for city/region undisputed - Above comments nowhere dispute established claim of sole representative of the folktronica genre for southern, New Mexico, specifically the city of Las Cruces; valid criteria for article. 98.230.209.189 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —
 * Comment: If I may quote the WP:BAND guidelines: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." (emphasis mine). None of the claims in this article are verifiable. We have no evidence that Mr. Gladden is the most prominent representative of the Las Cruces music scene, or of the folktronica genre, and the complete lack of coverage, local or otherwise, strongly suggests that he isn't. Even if you misinterpret the criterion as meaning "the most prominent representative of a notable style for a local scene", the claim still doesn't fit: if there is a "sole representative" then there isn't a scene at all; you need an actual community of artists to have a scene. BTW, sock puppetry is against the rules. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Weak claims to notability do not meet any point of WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:N with a dash of WP:COI for good measure. sparkl!sm  hey! 13:12, 6 April 2009 (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.