Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.E.I. Recordings

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.I. Recordings

[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)

Draft rejected numerous times at AfC [1] but recreated again in mainspace. I'm not convinced that there's enough to meet NCORP - sources read like paid promotional pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to share this welcome message from the article creator's talk page: "Hi Meirecordings! I noticed your contributions to COVID-19 pandemic in Madhya Pradesh and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay." Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much like Edgeout Records, this appears to be a label that wrote its own article before it actually had any notable artists, and like Edgeout, it has been remarkably successful at getting its PR releases republished on otherwise-respectable journalistic outlets. Honestly, I don't think it makes sense for us to cover a label even if it meets GNG if it has no notable artists (and, conversely, with WP:MUSIC, I'd argue GNG is not necessary if the label has a sufficiently notable roster). I don't think there should be prejudice against re-creation here, if the label starts breaking artists, but there's no real encyclopedic value to our covering a label whose artists get no critical nor popular traction. Chubbles (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, minus two of them, are all Google News websites which I was in the belief were acceptable sources. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Ike Rhein, https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+rhein, is a pretty notable artist. The company has also worked with notable artists including The Game and Luh Kel. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. "Puff profiles" to promote the label are no independent content. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage which are reliable and independent of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (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.