Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunego


 * 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. Enigmamsg 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tunego

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Sources are a mix of churnalism. scope_creep (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

- Keep WP:ORGIND The author is independent of the content. Several different sources are provided. WP:NCORP TUNEGO is inherently notable because they have demonstrated effects on entertainment via the media coverage on their Exclusive Industry Portal. TUNEGO is also notable due to their media coverage in Hypebot, Digital Music News, Music Business Worldwide, and Music Connection. (AzaleeMaslow (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC))
 * , You are not 'independent', in fact you have a massive COI. As you were paid to write this article, it's obvious you would vote to keep it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're notable, they need not pay you to create article for them. It would've been created by unpaid volunteer like any other notable business. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article fails to meet the criteria of a number of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH are both left unmet due to a lack of in-depth, independent coverage. Note that the vast majority of the sources cited by the article are press releases ("Startup/IPO Tunego raises X amount of money" as a hypothetical) announcing funding, which is an issue as Tunego does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) inherit notability from its investors nor artists using it, and press releases do not fulfill WP:NCORP's criteria for valid sources. Per the nominator's point, the article is also awash with churnalism and corporate spam, as could probably be expected given that it was created by a disclosed paid editor. Note also that the sources cited indicate that, as of May 2018 the company has raised around $13 million, which is a trival amount when compared to other companies; this raises WP:MILL issues as the company does not denote why it is notable when compared to other similar companies, and WP:TOOSOON needs to be considered as the company is relatively small and still considered a newcomer to the industry.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unmitigated, paid-for spam. A classic example of what the encyclopedia is not for. This company has done nothing to demonstrate significance or importance. The sources mainly just confirm its routine seed capital. and its entry into the market Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weak referencing that cannot establish notability nor pass the strengthened NCORP. Also compounding this is the fact that the paid editor knowingly decided not disclose that they were paid to create and promote this article as required by policy. They only did so rather reluctantly after I suspected that and confronted them with the issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:58, 23 June 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.