Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Records

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 Speedy Delete. Blanked by author. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immaculate Records

Immaculate Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article appears to be self-published by user, IMAC001, whose name is a derivative of Immaculate Records. It's companion article, Curtis Newart should also be considered for deletion. Please see the discussion on the Immaculate Records discussion page. Ronbo76 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to Administrator Please note that Ronbo76's page lists entries that he has had successfully deleted. Furthermore, his "To Do List" states: "Create a kill list of articles that I have successfully nominated." I strongly question the merit of this deletion nomination, especially since a body of work such as mine stands on its own merits. Furthermore, I believe deletion of my self-published entries 'Curtis Newart' and 'Immaculate Records' would be a decided disservice to your readership. However, to avoid conflict of interest, all copyrighted materials owned by Immaculate Records and/or Curtis Newart will be removed.IMAC001 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)(Curtis Newart, Immaculate Records Owner)
• Speedy Delete To avoid conflict of interest. All copyrighted materials owned by Immaculate Records will be removed.IMAC001 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion was just had on the user's talk page. My userpage is a sandbox where user can compile a to-list. The only articles are those AfD that have been successfully deleted. Immaculate Records is not on that list and this user knows it because he has been to my page.
• Comment removedIMAC001 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - How does the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest enter into the following quote from the third paragraph:

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; Ronbo76 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete non notable, self published, no credible independent sources. Daniel J. Leivick 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment to User:IMAC001 I have no expertise in this field whatsoever (check out my user page), thats the kind of the point of Wikipedia. I would recommend that you get to know Wikipedia by editing articles that interest you and maybe creating a couple on topics that you are not directly related to but knowledgeable about before jumping in and creating on article on yourself and your company. While this is not necessary it would allow you to gain experience in what is and is not acceptable conduct on this site. Right now you are experiencing the kind of divisiveness that is the worst part about Wikipedia, but if he were to look beyond these debates you would find that it is truly a great source of information and enjoyment. You will also find that using it as a promotional tool is very difficult. Good luck and have fun Daniel J. Leivick 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, to Curtis. WP:MUSIC states the criteria for your inclusion. We'll need verifiable sources that you meet one or more of them - links to the specific pages on the RADIOGAY and CIBL sites that you refer to might be a good start, although I'm not sure that being in the top 40 in Montreal (as opposed to Canada) is really enough. The article can stay if you can prove your notability, but I hope you understand that we can't just take your assertions on trust. Tevildo 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Tevildo. Thank you for your words of encouragement.IMAC001 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. A record label with one release (and by an artist not even listed on AMG, at that)? Hard to think of something less notable. —Chowbok ☠ 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are provided. --Haemo 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as corporate vanity. So tagged. MER-C 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self-publishing label. pure vanity and a conflict of interest. Ohconfucius 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete corp spamcruft. -- Jmax- 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. A conflict of interest. Realkyhick 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I found some coverage of the Canadian label (as opposed to the UK label) from non-mirror sites, but they were very weak sources. Delete for now until it becomes more notable. Royalbroil ^T : C 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment removedIMAC001 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I plead 'Fair comment'. You may of course try to sue me, but in order to establish defamation, you have to prove that what I said was untrue, and that prejudice has been suffered. Of course, such prejudice will not include any revenue foregone from failing to get listed on wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a directory or a webhost. Ohconfucius 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment IMAC001 is unfamiliar with how vanity edits relate to this discussion and on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

Where "vanity" is allowed Signed-in users may use their user subspace to publish short autobiographies within the bounds of good taste and compatible with the purpose of working on the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:User page. If you wish to write about yourself without working on the encyclopedia, consider starting a website or a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a free webhost.Ronbo76 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment removedIMAC001 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable record company with one artist and one release. Basically, the record company seems little more than a name under which Curtis Newart has self-released his album. Fan-1967 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment removedIMAC001 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment to Administrator I would respond that I have taken the time to review and understand Wikipedia's standards, as well as having reviewed literally hundreds of self-promotional articles posted by little-known musicians. Fan-1967 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment removedIMAC001 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Has it not yet occurred to you that notability in these discussions is mainly determined based on the consensus of the "opinions" of the editors posting here? Sorry, but at this point you have zero other editors supporting you. No amount of comments to administrators is going to overcome that. Fan-1967 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment to User IMAC001 User IMAC001, you really should take a look at Wikipedia policy WP:Policies_and_guidelines. No one needs to prove there expertise here, that is the point, if everyone had to be experts then it would be just like any other encyclopedia. Please rather then arguing about notability and user's expertise in determining it please look at some of the other policies which you are violating most importantly WP:Auto. Once again I will strongly recommend you get to know Wikipedia and not be insulted by this process, as I have said before this kind of discussion is one of the least pleasant on Wikipedia. Do not take any of this personally. Daniel J. Leivick 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)]]
        • Notability is not completely opinion. WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP have pretty clear criteria as to what is considered notable, and as it stands, this article fails both. —ShadowHalo 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This page is just an ad. Also note that the creator of the page seems to have a conflict of interest with this article. IMAC001, you should know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's right; Wikipedia is not a democracy. This isn't a vote. We are just giving our input on what we believe is to be the desired course of action with this article. If the admins don't like this article, they could get rid of it (or keep it, for that matter), regardless of what our input is. Just an FYI. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment to IMAC001 I have proof that you are violating Wikipedia policy with this quote from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. This includes promotion of companies you work for and their products, and criticism of competitors.

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Sorry IMAC001, but these are the rules. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. —ShadowHalo 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable record company, fails more notability guidelines than I care to mention. One Night In Hackney 18:37, 5 January 2007 (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.