Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquee Music Group


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Marquee Music Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not much evidence of notability that I can find. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this actually amounts to the needed substance. SwisterTwister   talk  21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:CORP. Lots of primary sources and blogs – references (1), (3) and (4) don't even mention Marquee Music at all. MTV and Billboard are reliable sources, of course, but the MTV bio is a straight licensed copy of the bio on Marquee Music's own web page, and the Billboard and Reverbnation sites tell you nothing about the label. No evidence of notability found, either for the label or for its acts. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: one of the article's contributors has posted a reasoning for keeping the article on its talk page, but I directed them here to make their case. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE: The article appears to be about a band or musician, but DOES credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...(the page is including the most credible and popular industry standard verifiable links from MTV, Billboard Charts, ASCAP Performing Rights Organization, Slacker Radio, Beatport and Vevo which provide contributions to the music industry from this label and if you were to take it down on that merit, one can make the case to take down hundreds of other Wikipedia record label pages with less credible links than the this that have been up for years. There are nearly 7 more new credible links, including Slacker Radio Top 40 Countdown.

In addition, any quick google will show label is on the biggest music sites around the world such as Apple Music, iTunes, Spotify, etc. The artist on this label are popular and all over the internet with popular songs and huge social media presence with numerous interviews in biggest blogs mentioning record label as well as being featured on homepage of Vevo. Links also provide contributions to label working with Michael Jackson's Sound Engineer. The article is not biased and produces plenty of Wikipedia approved links to remain.

Lastly, Marquee Music Group logo has been on Wikimedia for months without any problems making the case even stronger for this article to stay. Per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia speedy deletion states, "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation" this was the case here too as the page was flagged before more important updates were added by author.

Again per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia speedy deletion states "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." I believe above case and point that the article should stay and be worked on by the community to make better page so that more people can readily find information about this label and its artist.) --Osrius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands - sources tangential, nothing about the label itself, no claims of notability even for its artists - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no indications of notability nor could I find sufficient RS to meet GNG or CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a quick check on the news tab of search results show nothing — not about the label or its association with any acts on the label. Not to mention that none of the acts are notable enough themselves. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2016 (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.