Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Music People (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Music People
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significance. BEFORE search proves this a wonderfully generic search term, but in 38 pages I found two sources that are usable. Apparently though, they're on a different company (selling equipment, stands and microphones and stuff, and not stock music). There are two more plausible sources, but alas they appear to be more or less routine mentions, the first on some internal reorganization, and the second a directory entry. Overall, I can't find any evidence that this company is in any way notable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - We have a company profile based, seemingly, just on its own website. That's a WP:NOT problem. Considering ALpha3031's review of the sources, it sounds like there's a notability issue, too, but I'm content postponing judgment on that if someone wants to recreate this with a bunch of reliable independent sources later. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (I DEPRODded, as it had been DEPRODded previously, before the 2011 AfD decision to delete). No third party sources discuss this company.  Fails WP:CORP by a long way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published website technically verifies that they exist; they require reliable source coverage about them in media to clear our notability standards. This cites none of the correct kind of sourcing at all, but between its incredibly generic name and the article's total lack of any uniquely identifying information (the actual name of even one person who's ever been involved with it, etc.) that might help to distill the signal to noise ratio at all, it's nearly impossible to even attempt to find the correct type of sourcing. Even on a ProQuest search for older pre-Googlable coverage, I get too many irrelevant text matches on usages like "From the first chord of the music, people went nuts" and "This album, I did what I felt was the right thing to do for the music. People didn't always understand" and "It was the music, people were singing" — and this article gives me literally nothing I can use to even try to filter for relevant hits. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable under WP:CORP, so it lives or dies on whether it clears WP:GNG on the sourceability or not — but there's virtually no evidence that it actually does so. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Actually should be Speedy Delete as G4 because this existed at the time of the previous AFD with a trivially different name and was missed on the close, and then this stub was moved into its place. Nothing has changed since the AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first AFD was about a compilation album, not a music production company — so this isn't automatically speediable just because it happens to have the same name as different topic that got deleted in the past. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2019 (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.