Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dough Related Productions

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dough Related Productions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not my field, but it would serm to me that they have not done enough significant work to be notability DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just to make a note, I created this article. so obviously this goes as a comment because of bias! Having a look at the overall category of Australian hip hop record labels. they are either poorly cited or have no citations at all. defiantly one notable artist on the label also the co founder. Multiple other artists with articles one from the ARIA Charts also they are not just national but international. fits the bill for notability imo. More than happy to have further discussion. Also just a quick edit and also source for "poorly cited labels" Hydrofunk Records is an example. On further reading there are other labels after having a quick check. If this article is deemed to be deleted it would be a great help to move it to a draft so I can continue to develop it. | Passportgang (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable vanity label for non notable artist. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Label does not inherit notability from an artist appearing on the ARIA charts (a claim not backed up). Claims multiple other artists with pages but article only lists one, the founder who shall be going to afd. Label is not notable because other bad articles exist. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "ARIA charts (a claim not backed up)" Did you check that citation? There is no claim on the article of "appearing on the ARIA charts" There is a claim of "being an official ARIA Club Chart DJ" with a citation directly from ARIA. Passportgang (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to the article on the charts themselves, implying the artist on those charts. And that artist does not have an article here. You claim "official ARIA Club Chart DJ". No such thing. Regardless neither would make this label notable. Yes I see that bias you speak of above. According to your user page you first started editing as User:Doughrelated (WP:SPAMNAME). You really should declare conflicts of interest when part of the label itself as that username strongly suggests. Also you should only edit with one account. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - signed one artist who has a an article, which article was created by same editor. Not notable as a corporation, not notable as a record label (publisher of recorded art) and not notable per GNG. Regarding Hydrofunk Records, please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and that label has several artists with articles, which is an indication (but not proof) of notability for a record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 11 July 2019 (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.