Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIG 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GIG Music Group[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable company. Unable to find reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is written like an advertisement, as the template on the article suggests, and ~~this group is not notable enough for its own article.~~ –TCN7JM 01:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete Without Prejudice pere SwisterTwister. –TC N7 JM 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The promotional nature of the article is a seperate problem that could be fixed, but the lack of a single RS supercedes even trying to fix this. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - As usual sometimes, record labels don't receive significant coverage aside from minor mentions through their clients but I really haven't found anything substantial for this company and it seems their website is under construction. All in all, there isn't that much information about the company and numerous Google News searches provided nothing useful. I have no prejudice for a future article if the company becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherent. While the executive may be, it does not seem the company meets WP:CORP on its own. Mkdw ^talk 04:19, 3 March 2013 (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.