Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demigodz 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 merge to Apathy (rapper). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demigodz Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY. From WP:COMPANY, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.' All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The only references are to Discogs, CDUniverse and Amazon, all either user-generated or retail stores. Also notability is not inherited from the founder Apathy or the artists supposedly "signed" to the label, which are not backed by any reliable source or source at all. Also based on the albums released on the label that have Wikipedia articles, the label has not released any significantly notable or charting albums. STATic message me! 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete. I was thinking of suggesting a merge into Apathy (rapper), but it doesn't seem like there are any viable references for even that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP!: Added new section: Demigodz_Records#Charted_Albums showing all the albums that have been on the official Billboard 200 charts with reliable references. Improvements have been made on the page. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All low positions, none on the Billboard 200. STATic message me! 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - These guys are non-mainstream independent artists. Getting anywhere on the charts is good enough imo. TwinTurbo (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more information on the page, including an album that's been on US billboard Top 200 Albums, where does this page stand now? TwinTurbo (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will gradually be adding more information on the page as time progresses. TwinTurbo (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are missing the point. From WP:COMPANY, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.' All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That is the issue here. It lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All coverage is passing or trivial. STATic message me! 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you people think of this? This seems like a reliable source... TwinTurbo (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1) Under no situation would that be a reliable source. On top of that, you wrote it just a few days ago, you know they have edit histories there too right? STATic message me! 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the large following (for independent artists), the combined millions of views online, and the fact the thousands of artists with smaller followings have sustained pages on this website, this page should remain as such, and continue to exist, and i can/will contribute to the expansion of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTNxOZ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of coverage about Demigodz Records in independent reliable sources. Falls short of WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Apathy (rapper). Label is notable because of chart action, but it has no notability outside of its single artist, Apathy. It is a "vanity label". I added a source with additional, interesting information, and is probably reliable as an interview, but as there is no editorial oversight, it doesn't help toward establishing notability. @user:TwinTurbo, wikia is a wiki just like Wikipedia. It is inherently not a reliable source, as *anyone* can insert any kind of information to its content. If the label signs additional, notable artists, then the article should be re-created/split out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apathy (rapper), but only in lieu of a Demigodz article. The label and the group are essentially the same thing (the roster of signed artists reads as a roster of Demigodz members), but the Demigodz article would have to be unsalted and recreated first (which it should be, as current and former members Apathy, Celph Titled, 7L & Esoteric, Styles of Beyond, DJ Cheapshot and Louis Logic are all notable.). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright if things have to go this way, then I agree with @78.26. The article should be *Merged and Redirected to Apathy (rapper). TwinTurbo (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.