Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment

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 Twiztid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majik Ninja Entertainment

[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)

Absolutely no indication this endeavor meets WP:NCORP. This is a record label, not a bio on a musician or a band. A record label is a business and as such the article must meet the applicable notability guideline. Also, very PROMO, with a considerable amount of either WP:UPE or WP:COI editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twiztid, who appear to be the founders and operators of the label. I haven't been able to find any significant independent coverage of the label in WP:RS. Faygoluvers.net, to which a substantial portion of the article is sourced, doesn't seem to be reliable. A good portion of the articles there are credited to "ScottieD", who is probably the same person as the Scott Donihoo listed on the advertising page, and other articles are credited under nicknames. Even then, coverage is kind of rudimentary ([1]). No opinion on whether to retain the article history. Daß Wölf 02:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some information with Twiztid#Formation_of_Majik_Ninja_Entertainment_(2014–2015) per User:Daß Wölf. Has plenty of independent sources, listed events, and results from a quick google search together help pass some notability guidelines. However, as per nom, it doesn't fully pass WP:NCORP. Best if merged to keep the independent sources and to take note that the label is somewhat notable. Redditaddict6 9 03:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current merge/redirect/delete split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I'd be okay with a selective merge and redirect per above. Redditaddict69 mentions secondary sources, but I cannot see merging anything referenced to "faygolovers.com". John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twiztid; not independently notable. Signifant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2018 (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.