Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrArtist Network


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

UrArtist Network

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indications of notability. Although the article claims they are affiliated with a number of notable bands, it does not make clear what the nature of the affiliation is, and no reliable sources can be found to verify any of it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - The article is notable, a reliable, unbiased source that took seconds to find is here, from Bloomberg Business Week. How can someone say no reliable sources exist when they do and take seconds to find? Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I added references to the artist list, there are sources about the bands affiliated with the organization. It is a primary source, from the "Artists" section of their official website, but it contributes to the verifiability of the article, and is a source.Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment The reference provided is not an article from Bloomberg Business Week but a mere business directory listing that does not in any way support the notability of the company. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is the text from, investing.businessweek.com. It supports the notability of the company significantly:


 * "urArtist Network provides resources, services, and facilities for the development and promotion of artists, bands, and support crew in Canada and internationally. It enables artists and independent management to make educational and practical decisions on careers. The company offers a suite of digital tools and label management services for established and developing artists. It offers services for music recording artists, songwriters, and composers in the area of music licensing; management services in the areas of recording, manufacturing, retailing, distributing, and promoting albums, as well as securing sponsorship, booking gigs to tour management, and public relations; and marketing services, such as interactive digital media marketing, radio and video promotion, entertainment strategy development, database communication, creative and development, lifestyle marketing, mobile marketing, and publicity and media relations. The company also provides studio production services, including songwriting, audio and video recordings, and studio/backline rentals; television production services for creating live broadcasts, music videos, and genre-specific programming; event planning services for gatherings and city-wide festivals; and education services in the areas of technical engineering, production lessons, performance caps, entertainment businesses, and management. In addition, it offers music products, clothing for men and women, music gear, vehicles, and computers through its store. The company is based in Toronto, Canada."


 * The fact that it is listed on Bloomberg Businessweek, which is very unlikely to list unnotable companies, further validates the articles notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a flawed assumption: Bloomberg Businessweek's "Company Insight Center" claims to provide information on over 320,000 private companies worldwide. While this may not include every company, it does seem to be a large enough number to be rather indiscriminate about the notability of the companies listed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability not established through any reliable 3rd party sources that I can find.  PK  T (alk)  21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources about the company. I agree with 's analysis of the Bloomberg Businessweek source. Tantamount to a directory entry, the source cannot be used to establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2011 (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.