Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentric Music

: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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (orate) 20:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Sentric Music]]=

:{{la|Sentric Music}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentric_Music Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sentric Music}})

Advert for company. Awards are not major. Lacks significant independent coverage of Sentric Music. Best sources are a blog where they talk about themselves and two local interest pieces from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, falling short of the Depth of coverage needed. Notability is not inherited from it's clients. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whilst I agree that the article content is a little too much like an advert, that is not a reason in itself for deletion. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jun/16/elevatorpitchsentrichelpss This] in The Guardian and [http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/01/17/liverpool-s-sentric-music-wins-international-recognition-99623-27997439/ this] reporting they were "named as one of the world’s top five “virtual businesses”" combined with the [http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/04/29/music-royalties-firm-sentric-looks-to-europe-92534-28602650/ other] [http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/12/14/funding-boost-for-sentric-music-92534-29948895/ sources] (there are more that only appear on factiva) in the Liverpool Daily Post are in my opinion sufficient to meet WP:CORP. There has clearly been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Guardian blog is not independent coverage and the Daily Post pieces fall short of "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" from the Audience part of WP:ORG's Primary criteria. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh? What makes the Guardian not independent? WP:GNG arguably takes precedence over WP:CORP, and is easily met, but even using CORP's criteria, because of the Guardian article, the coverage is not solely local. SmartSE (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's just a blog hosted by the Guardian and it's just Sentric talking about themselves. There is almost no independent analysis. Just a printing of Sentrics words. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have done my best to ensure that the information contained on this page is relevant, factual and from a variety of reliable sources. While the awards may not be major, they were still awarded to Sentric and so I feel relevant. News articles from The Guardian, Liverpool Daily Post and the Irish Times hopefully offer reliable sources and a press release from The North West Fund [http://www.thenorthwestfund.co.uk/news/digital-and-creative-release-23052012] is current, relevant information. Philrose83 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Irish Times is not about them and does not even mention them. Press releases are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep but remove all acts listed which are not notable. This sort of listing should be treated like our usual criteria for lists, having a Wikipedia article or being obviously qualified for one. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs a cleanup. 83.244.237.75 (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.