Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anger Music Group

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 The Used. consensus at The Used can obviously determine what should be merged, if anything at all (i.e., either way, this will still end up as a redirect). slakr^\ talk / 06:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Music Group[edit]

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

Non-notable business. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Used. Not independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to The Used since this is currently just the group's personal label, and it has not signed any other groups since it was formed in 2011. If and when the label does sign other groups an independant article can be considered. Note that the refs are listed as having been accessed in 2011, so this is not the first go around for this article. Meters (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page as is - It is a company and an record labeled, multiple sources have been linked and multiple releases have been released via it. What record label other then small local unheard ones do not have a wikipage? the page should stay exactly as is. Gatorbury (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Gatorbury, can you please point to a single reliable, independent source that gives significant coverage to Anger Music Group as the subject of discussion, as opposed to routine, passing mention when devoting main attention to the band? Because I'm just not seeing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Cullen328, A simple google search of: " "the used" "anger music group" " provides over 100 sources containing information about the record label. I could now confirm that the band Corpus are now part of AMG label despite not having a release on it yet so it's not just The Used anymore. The page would be a bit too large to be merged with The Used page itself. I would NOT totally object to a section on The Used page containg all the information I have gathered and typed up to be merged from the AMG page to The Used page. However, I think the section would be a bit to large and important to be a footnote merged with The Used page itself and therefore should remain seperate. I'm not sure why this is receiving so much back fire and I am surprised the page did not exist yet. There are pages on this site that have 2 sentences on them and do not get deleted so why a record label could not have its own page and details such as history and background information is confusing to me. Is there anything particular that you wanted to see that I could provide you with to get us on the same mindset? Gatorbury (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Pointing out over 100 Google hits is of no use, Gatorbury, as they could be connected to the band, the label, Facebook, YouTube, blogs, amateur sites, passing mentions and all the other debris that litters the internet. This is an encyclopedia and we expect significant coverage in reliable independent sources. So just link to one or two such solid sources, and I will change my vote to "keep". Yes, we have other articles that are crappy, and I have recommended deleting hundreds of them. I have also recommended keeping hundreds when the topic was notable. We keep two sentence stubs about notable topics. But we are discussing this article here, not those other ones. And it is up to you to furnish the sources that show notability. As for "back fire', we routinely delete thousands of crappy articles about non-notable topics all the time. That's one of the ways that we protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. This is a completely routine debate here.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Cullen328 The sources that I used on the page were official sites of the bands or record labels or interviews with band members (some being video/audio). I think they are as relaible and have as much notability as wiki could want a source to have, if sources of official sites and interviews with words directly from the bands mouths is not legit enough then I really don't know what would be. I could add some more sources from legit/respected music sites to help though. Gatorbury (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply "Reliable independent sources" do not include anything from the band members or the record label. Meters (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Gatorbury An independent source is one that has no affiliation whatsoever with the band or the record label. An independent source is not one that reprints the words of the band members or press releases from the band. We are looking for completely independent sources to establish notability. So please bring one or two forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 March 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.