Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmg 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. Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmg records Inc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to establish notability, non-notable label only seems to have success distributing music via iTunes. Lugnuts 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Exactly, and you failed to acknowledge iTunes as a distributor and Brandon Beals fame as an artist. By not considering that a source. This is what is really all about. Listen, I read some of all of the articles you created, appreciated and informative, but some where of completely unknown Swedish film people and never heard even for a Swedish person myself. Just be careful as active as you are in Wiki world, to steer straight and dont get beside yourself of how you define "encyclopedic", lognuts. You clearly demonstrates lack of knowledge with US labels, and you adjust you little world of definitions to that. (Oncewereviking 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)) It was a small mention but nevertheless establishes notability. PS I looked up MMG on Wikipedia after reading the article. BritBoy J
 * Delete WP:CORP. Notability is not established by multiple, nontrivial sources. In fact, no sources are cited. The article does not read like an encyclopedia entry, but instead like a marketing piece or advertisement. Complicating matters is WP:COI where the sole author is an employee for the label. -Andrew c [talk] 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentMMG Records Inc is a NYC based record label selling albums in the 10th of thousands. There's a very high focus on the company, and being able to retrieve NEUTRAL info on it is of value for Wikipedia users. THe article is not meant as promotion, and I've shortened it down. However, it is interesting to observe how the user who placed the speedy deletion on the site have articles on completely unknown labels with completely unknown artist, but that the user properly like. Its also interesting, how its made neutral the talk about nontrivial sources may not exist, when in fact if active in our industry one would know about this company before many of the others listed in Wikipedia. As for sources, the 10 thousands of consumers of who some might want to know more through Wikipedia. I don't see how this serves as marketing and I especially do not see how it could NOT inform.(Oncewereviking 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
 * First of all, while it may not seem "fair", the argument WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a valid argument for inclusion during deletion debates. If we have other non-notable record labels, they clearly should be listed for deletion as well. The answer to articles that don't meet our guidelines for inclusion is not to add more articles that don't meet our guidelines. Also, have you read WP:CORP? You claim that "there's a very high focus on the company", but how is a wikipedia reader to verify that information without resorting to independent sources? Please, verifiability isn't simply an option, it is a policy. Where are the independent sources for this article which establish notability?-Andrew c [talk] 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But it's not encyclopedic, lacks notabilty and fails WP:CORP. So you honestly think that "10 thousands of consumers" would look here first, and not the label's website instead?  That pretty much admits that it is an advert to promote a label to draw as much business to it as possible.  I have no problem if it is notable, but you need to cite reliable sources to prove that it is.   Plus there is the fact of you creating an article for a business you work for in the first place, but that's a whole other issue... Lugnuts 09:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Legnuts, we thought you were supposed to be neutral and non emotional. Feel free to delete the article a any time. Your knowledge on unknown Swedish actors (du er jo svensker) and unknown labels are still appreciated. Seriously.
 * "Legnuts, we thought you were supposed to be neutral and non emotional.". Nah. Lugnuts 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC
 * Comment but at the end of the day, your article doesn't have any reliable sources. In the time you've typed that, you could of found some sources to back up the notability of your article.  I guess they don't exist, because, shock horror, it's not a notable article.  Lugnuts 20:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentAs said and now repeated, no problem with deletion if article don't go by the ethics and guidelines for Wikipedia, the rules makes total sense. Wikipedia rocks. Only problem as addressed before is that iTunes is not considered a source. The statements by lagnuts "only seems to have success distributing music via iTunes" is what lingers through this entire discussion for my part at least. If a proper, neutral conversation is provided to me without "nah shock horror" words, to the point where why, without circumventing the matter with listings of rules, iTunes is not a decent source, then I'm fine with afd. Itunes is not a webpage we created.
 * Comment' Why dont you guys use the artice on MMG records that was in a UK Hip Hop magazine a couple of weeks ago?


 * Keep - iTunes is a notable and reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.249.142 (talk • contribs)


 * question - Britboy7, what article? I mean, what magazine? (Oncewereviking 17:50, 8 August 2007 (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.