Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropeadope

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 redirect to Rope-a-dope. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ropeadope

Ropeadope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

marketing screed for a non-notable record label

• Delete. Ropeadope is not a notable company. Wikipedia isn't a place for marketing your stuff. Aurush kazemini (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. It should be noted that the creator of Ropeadope, User:Mrfortune, seems to have signed on only to create one article and never returned. Aurush kazemini (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not familiar with the label, but it seems most of the musicians listed as clients have substantial, undisputed wikipedia articles. I think the article could use a bit of a rewrite, some of it does sound like a press release. Incidentally, I think it should be noted that Aurush is apparently nominating this article because I edited it in passing a few weeks ago and he's looking to hurt my feelings or something. I have listed him as a sock puppet suspect of MiltonP Ottawa, a user now banned for vandalism, sock puppetry and aggression towards other editors. TastyCakes (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember to WP:AGF. Whether or not you're having a disagreement with another user doesn't affect whether or not the article is notable. Stick to the issues instead of attacking the Wikipedian. SmashTheState (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure and all that. If I agreed the article should be deleted I would have said so, even if it meant agreeing with this probable sock puppet, as I did here. Also, I hardly think you're one to lecture about good faith when your immediate response to any edit you dislike is to claim political bias. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A Google search shows the only references are music sales sites. The only citation in the article is a blog posting. Almost none of the bands with the label are notable enough to have their own article, and the few that do should probably have a deletion review too. SmashTheState (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to see better sources to prove it is a publisher, not merely a distributor, of CDs. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• There seems to be quite a few bluelinks of bands who are signed to this label. I'm not too familiar with WP:MUSIC, but in any case, if it doesn't pass, don't delete, Redirect to Rope-a-dope.SMSpivey (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: advertising, non-notable label, fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2009 (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.