Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Junkies


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Music Junkies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough (if any) independent, in-depth reliable sourcing to meet the WP:GNG or any of the relevant subject notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. My search did not turn up any independent or reliable sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I adjusted important parts of the article already. Still, for which matters, or parts of the article exactly you want to see improved sourcing? Where is the point for seeking up "reliable sources" for matters like featured artists, and the track count, of the stated music agency? With those adjustments the biggest part of the article follows the wiki guidelines easily. To emphase and properly proove other facts, there are already two different, reliable sources included. Please let me know which facts exactly you want to see improved sources for. Also, consider the relevance of Music Junkies Inc. Classicalmusicfreak (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Classicalmusicfreak (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * My concern is not that there are specific facts without sources, but rather that the overall organization does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Specifically, it has not met the critera for having received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jmertel123, I partly understand your concerns, but would although (respectfully) disagree on most of your points. Although the music library might be not as "hot", in terms of it is discussed, but just consider that it is one of the first, if not the first trailer music library in history, which makes the question of its relevance redundant. Aditionally the roster of artists, just like Nike Phoenix (famous for being the founder of 'Two Steps from Hell' and his work at East West studios) should speak for itself.

My point is that at the end of the day the quantity of pros, (industry pioneer, longtime existence, calibre of artists and clients) "weight out" the cons very easily. In my opinion two secondary primary sources are easily more than enough to proove most of the given information.

Last but not least, there are trailer music agencies, with a far smaller scope, which although have broad articles here on wiki. As polemic as this argument might sound, but if you really consider to delete the article for this library, than you logically would also have to (at least) consider the deletion of plenty of others as well. Nick Phoenix's work and co-work for a major part of the libraries catalouge alone justifies the article. Classicalmusicfreak (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment that the sources provided "prove most of the given information" - I don't disagree at all. However, simply being able to verify a statement does not indicate notability.   In terms of there being other articles on similar organizations: other stuff exists, but this AfD is a forum to discuss this article, not others. It comes down to whether this organization meets the notability requirements, and I simply don't see the evidence that it does.  Jmertel23 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not see the reliable sourced independent significant coverage required to establish notability. ~ GB fan 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged - but I still disagree. For now I am out of this discussion. I have the feeling we are spinning in a circle of redundancy and spurious arguments. I've heard (and acknowledged) your cons, and you've heard my pros. I'm writing for wiki for years and clearly know all of the guidelines, and in my opinion the "raison d'être" is clearly given for this article. But again; we are spinning in a circle. So - let's leave the final decision up to an admin. Classicalmusicfreak (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What arguments are spurious? Have you ever read Notability?  That is the test used by to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.  ~ GB fan 23:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Minor company (it is any sort of public library!) that does not meet WP:NCORP. Sam Sailor 02:11, 2 October 2018 (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.