Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Hill 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) scope_creep^Talk 02:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round Hill Music

[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)

High promotional music publishing article. No real references. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: what do you make of the billboard.com sources in light of your claim that this fails WP:ORGIND? Aren't they independent of the subject? Are you counting them as a trade publication? I think this article is particularly hard to square with your nom, since it looks to me like significant (non-routine) coverage. Apparently it even appeared in the print edition. Colin M (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: I think there is difference between notability and depth and independence of coverage. I have no doubt they are notable. I think it is the usual shallow industry sources that are present for any type od industry. I'll check with reliable sources to see what they say about billboard.com and the article in general. I suspect it is RS, but it not enough. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have editorial oversight. The rest are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello All. Thank you for discussing this. Billboard_(magazine) is one of the most respected music publications and has a robust page here that I have linked. They do not repost press releases without editorial comment and oversight. Additionally, the The_Wall_Street_Journal has written about the company several times. In addition, I would ask that you keep in mind that many reputable companies, who readers and the public at large would like to know about, may not have actively been searching out press or even doing "press worthy" things in their past. Round Hill Music owns and actively helps continue the legacy of some of the most well known songs in the history of western recorded music. Were it not for their active work with those songs and and songwriters, many of them would have likely faded into obscurity. If someone is searching for 'who owns Video Killed The Radio Star' for a piece they're writing in school about changes in the music industry, I would like to believe that the Wikipedia community is interested in having them find the answer here. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Twrch (talk) [[Special:Contribs/{{{Twrch}}}|contribs]]) has been paid by Round Hill Music. 15:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been substantially improved since nomination, both in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. References now include in-depth coverage from The Guardian and Billboard magazine, as well as some more routine coverage from other reliable sources. At this point there's no doubt in my mind that WP:GNG has been satisfied. Hats off to Scope creep and Twrch (and IP editor 24.205.92.132) for their quality edits to this article over the last couple weeks. Colin M (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Seems to be genuine and some editing to cleanup the article. scope_creep^Talk 02:54, 9 March 2019 (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.