Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A&M Entertainment (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. Sources insufficient to establish notability. Dreadstar † 06:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A&M Entertainment

The article fails WP:ORG because of a lack of reliable, third-party published sources. Press releases and directory listings do not meet the standard for notability for companies. dissolve ^talk 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The references in this article are fine. archanamiya · talk 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:ORG: "Secondary sources" "except for the following: Press releases" and "other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." i.e. the company submitting info for a directory listing. Which source in the article exactly doesn't fit into this criterion? dissolve ^talk 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, the references are fine. 23skidoo (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are reliable, article subject is notable. Luk suh 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure the references are fine, in terms of WP:ORG. There are six references (one reference is cited twice) and two company-related ELs. Among the six references, I see 2 PR style releases (1 2 (<--could be a directory listing, says it is, but I put it here because it was obviously written by the company), 2 directory listings (1, 2), 1 blank page (1--maybe it doesn't like Mozilla? Based on its name, it looks like a PR source; looking at this other release about the company at the same page, it sure seems like it)) and 1 page that currently doesn't seem even to mention the company (1 Perhaps it can be searched to disclose information...by subscribers.). A google news archive search brings up 3 hits. I got 215 unique hits on Google. I scanned all 215 of them, and I didn't find a single usable source. (I thought I did, on a Tupac Shakur website. Should have known it would be a fansite.) There may be more information locatable by searching A&M without entertainment, but this runs into the problem that the big A&M in music is A&M Records. You search "Busta Rhymes" (which the article claims is represented by A&M Entertainment), and A&M Records is what you find. I thought maybe I could trail this press release here to something, because a Tupac Legacy Tour would surely get some press, but it was evidently postponed...and then disappeared. In any event, I can't figure out what happened to it. I tried doing a linked search of "Mike Coates" & "A&M"; I got 58 unique hits, many unrelated, none that I saw reliable. This seems to be an international company. It claims to represent an impressive roster of performers. Why isn't there more reliable sourcing out there? I'm waffly over WP:ORG. If this article is to be believed, the company is notable. But where's the WP:V? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (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.