Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promo Only

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. Sandstein 05:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Only

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

Recently deleted article that was almost instantly recreated. I can't find any real reliable sources, and I don't believe the one award is enough for this to pass notability guidelines. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoesn't appear to be notable.JoelWhy (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because it was something I had searched for, only to find that an article didn't exist for it; I realized it had been previously deleted but did not take note of how recent it was. In the music industry, Promo Only is a well known promotional music service and was one of the first services that offered CD subscriptions. I would surmise that it gets searched for with reasonable frequency on Wikipedia. I was planning to add to the article when I had time, but I tried to at least partially establish notability with the reference to the awards that the service has won.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the only problem is that it doesn't matter how often people have or haven't searched for it. Popularity is not notability, it only makes it easier to find reliable sources that show notability. Even if something has over 40 million hits in Google, those hit amounts will not mean anything as far as WP:CORP or WP:WEB goes. Even being well known doesn't give you notability. For this you need reliable sources to show that the website/organization is notable and that the awards they've won are notable. Not every award is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. To be honest, 99% of awards given don't pass notability guidelines as far as saving articles go. I will say one thing- even if they are notable, you need to back them up with something that isn't posted on the Promo Only website. That's considered to be a primary source and primary sources don't show notability, partially because PO can claim whatever they want. Now if you had a link to a news story from a reliable source that listed the award or even the website for the awards themselves, then that would help. I'd go for the news story, as that would help show that the award was potentially notable. Still, that's no guarantee that an award is notable just because it's covered in the papers. It's sort of a tricky slope, so if you have any questions about sources the best place to check would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument; upon further investigation, there aren't very many news articles about Promo Only since it's been in business. While I still believe it's a notable company, I guess I'd have to agree that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I motion to delete with regards foremost to WP:BAND and secondarily to WP:GARAGE and WP:CHILL? The author admits there have been "very few news articles", I think that is an admission that the subject does not have enough relevant sources. As to the author, may I suggest WP:NMO?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gab _ 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely dubious level of notability, article sourced almost entirely to the topic's own site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Some minor mentions: [1], [2] but aside from that I could only find press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (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.