Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat

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

There is no indication that the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH, none of its artists seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND (not that it would make a difference), and none of its released albums seem to be notable. Completely unreferenced. Unable to find significant coverage in third-party sources, only self-generated and social media content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I also looked for any evidence of notability and found nothing. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability among research. Also, this may be a recreation of deleted material, I have worked with something similar in the past. Checking the deletion log now for evidence of this. T.I.M^(Contact) 01:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a promotional article created by a single-issue account. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, subject is not notable. Charon123able (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save I've fixed a lot of the problems mentioned here. Please reconsider this page, as it is more detailed, cited, and meets many more guidelines (to my knowledge). Danvb10 (talk) 2:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The article still does not meet WP:GNG as all the references used are from Monstercat's own website or Facebook page. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I'll just find all the info somewhere else then.. Danvb10 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? Danvb10 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I applaud your efforts in saving the article, the reality is that, while it looks better, you have not managed to establish the company's notability in any way. All except one of the references are primary, and the one that isn't doesn't seem to fall into what we'd consider reliable. Believe me, I tried. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, basically I just need to find more secondary sources? Danvb10 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they are reliable (WP:RS), yes. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 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.