Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Kung Fu

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Kung Fu[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)

This company isn't notable enough; no evidence of notability from an organisation perspective; does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. In addition to the one passing mention in an independent source cited, I found a passing mention in BBC and one in Wales Online. I could not find any in-depth coverage.

There is no evidence that this label was notable from a music perspective, so does not look to meet WP:NMUSIC. It had a few non-notable artists on its roster and three notable artists released one piece of work through the label (Cerys Matthews, Marissa Nadler and Richard James), however, it is clear to see that the albums/songs released were not themselves notable or significant enough to make this one of the more important indie labels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The reference provided in the article mentions the subject only in passing; so do the two sources found by the nominator. I have been able to retrieve another piece of coverage, also in Wales Online. This might constitute significant coverage towards GNG if Wales Online is indeed reliable. These pieces are all from more than 10 years ago and it does not seem that the label has risen in stature since. It seems the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a lengthy discussion has taken place about Wales Online but it's owned by Reach plc, which owns the Daily Mirror, Daily Express and Daily Star. The first of which, there is some disagreement about its reliability. The latter two, there is clear community consensus that these papers should be avoided. At best, I would be cautious about using Wales Online as a main source for notability of a subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree; it's just that I knew nothing at all about Wales Online. But if it is anything like the "Cambridgeshire live" type of publications, it's probably safe to assume it's unreliable. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nothing to suggest encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 06:48, 1 April 2021 (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.