Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamikaze (record label)

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 no consensus. At any rate not to delete, maybe to merge, but that can be hashed out on the talk page if needed. Sandstein 09:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze (record label)[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:COMPANY. There is a single 2007 reference that details an initial press release. Although they may have had an artist on contract who later became notable, is not relevant, as notability is not inherited. Also evidence, and hence verifiability, of most of the article's contents is lacking. This article fails to have significant coverage, fails to have reliable sources. In searching, this company is not to be confused with Kamikaze Records which was formed in 1997 in the San Francisco Bay Area. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and there are no WP:RS and the press release does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. However, I (jokingly) disagree with the nominator stating that there is "an artist on contract who later became notable." Looking at the WP:BAND articles linked from this one, I believe there should probably be a few more AfD discussions created. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your reasons to delete are based on a euro/american centric ideology. The company is very significant in Thailand, and meets notability criteria. The page needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.152.35 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, our "reasons" are based on Wikipedia guidelines. "Significant" and "notability" may flow into each other, but they are two separate things. If they are "significant", then the media would pick them up and run articles on them. This would lead to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which can then be used to establish WP:GNG. While claiming that it is our "ideology" infuriates me and shows your ignorance, I want to assume good faith and make a point that I hope you pay attention to. You bring up that they are significant in "Thailand." If that is the case, then present references from that region that meet WP:RS. They must be from WP:RS but do not need to be in English. Pay attention to the links on WP:GNG and WP:RS and make your case based on that as opposed to blaming it on someone's "ideology." --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking only at Google results from the Bangkok Post and The Nation 's websites turns up substantial coverage.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Paul_012 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

substantial coverage questioned Good skills in turns those up. However, that list is not all real coverage, only one actually provides coverage of the record label. #1 covers the Kamikaze label in depth, however, #2 covers a Kamikaze sponsored concert and has little to say about the label, #3 doesn't mention the label, per se, it has one sentence about the "dancing team 3.2.1 Kamikaze". #4 does mention the Kamikaze label, but in only one sentence saying they kept the other three band members under contract. #5 is again about a member of 3.2.1, only mentioning the Kamekazi label in passing. #6 is about the parent company "RS Public" and says in toto about the label: "Of the RS segments, Teen Community is the group aged from 10 to 17 years old, following new trends of Western and Asian music and spending their time mostly surfing the Internet. The music label of this segment is Kamikaze." #7 is a very short recap of a news release about an album, "a new collection, "Best of Kamikaze 2007-2011". #8 is again about hip-hop group 3.2.1, and only mentions Kamikaze in passing, and only because it quotes their head of music business, Hatai Sarawutpaiboon, about the group. So of all those that you have listed only one actually provides coverage of the record label. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the less in-depth mentions demonstrate national interest and contribute to evidence of notability. Most of them seem to be more than "merely trivial coverage" as mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH.

No, most of them are exactly mere trivial coverage. But see my comment below. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't oppose merging to RS Promotion (or wherever that currently redirects to). As a sub-label, WP:PRODUCT probably applies and the parent article isn't by any means overflowing with content. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RS Public Company Limited does seem to be notable, there is much more coverage of it than of its subsidiaries. I would agree to a redirect to RS Public Company Limited; however, I would not agree to merging content for which there is no citation to reliable sources, which, right now, is most of the content. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RS Public Company Limited, a change from my original suggestion to delete as nominator. Since no one else is commenting and this should be closed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:15, 8 July 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.