Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Naxal Records


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

United Naxal Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: No sign of notability, along with other articles created by KJIVA or those close to the subject. No reliable independent sources listed. Does not meet the guideline for record labels or music. The references only lists "free press releases" and user-generated music profiles. Most of the references are links to iTunes and Amazon mp3 music as it looks like an advertisement for financial gain that's being passed off as 'reliable sources'. Also, there are a lot of dead links, including the MusicBrainz authority control link. In my opinion, the subject has created several articles spamming Wikipedia with no sources. Speedy Deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs and MusicBrainz don't do much to establish notability. Despite the deceptively long list of references, this fails GNG. Speedy deletion is not justified, however, as there is a credible claim for notability. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as simply a business listing with the usual named mentions and few pieces of information, no substance at all. SwisterTwister   talk  18:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage necessary to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:26, 2 January 2017 (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.