410:. An artist is considered inherently notable if they have signed to "a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians." Therefore it stands to reason that a label that has many notable artists signed to it is inherently notable. I've been borrowing from him, but I'm going to quote
430:
is a clear violation of NOTINHERIT. However, two of the bands articles were created and developed by editors who have not worked on this article, and the other has had multiple editors contributing to it, and is the most highly notable of these bands, clearly having established notability regardless of
429:
This label has three clearly notable artists signed to it, and has an established history of 7 years. Now, I have seen a record company or even an independent editor create articles about a record company, and separate articles about its artists, and then using one to support the other's notability
203:
Perhaps someone who is better at finding sources for popular culture can find some secondary reliable sources for this label, but I can only find articles about artists which happen to mention Bit Riot in passing as their label or the label on which their latest release will be issued. I can't find
421:
This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do
400:
Record labels coming up for deletion are difficult to defend, because they aren't usually "sexy" unless talking about truly legendary labels such as Motown, Sun, or
Gennett. The artists get all the press and credit, but those who study the industry know how important record labels have been (and
434:#5. Articles such as this are important to keep, as the label has influenced our musical legacy. Since there are verifiable facts which demonstrate influence on the music world, this article and those like it are important to keep as providing valuable, encyclopedic information.
401:
continue to be, though to a lesser extent) on musical culture and development. A record company will properly divert attention to the product, and not to itself, therefore the GNG can be difficult to meet even for a successful independent.
172:
472:
I question the claim of three clearly notable artist. Only one seems clear and Bit Riot was only a minor label for them, rereleasing in a different region. Even if all were notable it is not enough for bands for
405:
isn't really a good fit for record labels, because they are in the business of producing and promoting "art", not a typical consumer good. The best case for keeping a record label such as this is found in
52:. The article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about notability. None of the keep votes express a policy-based rationale for keeping the article. Notability has not been established per
422:
with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels.
166:
271:
231:
125:
251:
458:
If we can find some third-party sources that are actually about the label (not just mentioning the name in passing), I'll change my comment to "keep" -
132:
98:
93:
102:
371:
321:
343:
Yes, but we still have no actual sources for this article concerning the label itself. Hence my "delete" being "without prejudice" -
85:
187:
17:
154:
518:
148:
621:
40:
217:
602:
581:
560:
534:
486:
467:
449:
388:
352:
338:
303:
283:
263:
243:
223:
67:
144:
598:
482:
89:
463:
367:
348:
317:
299:
617:
557:
194:
36:
81:
73:
62:
209:
180:
594:
478:
577:
526:
459:
379:
362:
344:
329:
312:
295:
279:
259:
239:
160:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
616:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
546:
500:
383:
333:
474:
445:
407:
57:
590:
431:
402:
375:
325:
413:
53:
573:
572:- Knowledge is better off with this piece than without it as a source of in-links.
511:
275:
255:
235:
311:
Isn't having notable artists and successful releases what makes a label notable?--
119:
208:
and while they have some talent who may be notable, notability is not inherited.
593:. Notability is not inherited. Notable artists do not make a business notable.
435:
549:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
503:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
294:
unless we can find some actual third-party coverage of the label itself -
610:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
589:. Business lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not
477:#5, let alone for this business to inherit notability.
115:
111:
107:
179:
510:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
418:directly here because he put it better than I can:
556:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
624:). No further edits should be made to this page.
419:
272:list of Business-related deletion discussions
232:list of Illinois-related deletion discussions
193:
8:
270:Note: This debate has been included in the
250:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:Note: This debate has been included in the
269:
252:list of Music-related deletion discussions
249:
229:
7:
24:
361:based on artists and releases.--
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
641:
603:02:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
535:07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
487:02:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
468:11:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
450:18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
353:09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
339:22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
304:15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
284:21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
264:21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
244:21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
224:19:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
68:23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
613:Please do not modify it.
582:17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
561:21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
389:06:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
292:Delete without prejudice
32:Please do not modify it.
424:
206:about the label itself
48:The result was
563:
537:
533:
387:
337:
286:
266:
246:
632:
615:
555:
551:
531:
525:
523:
516:
509:
505:
446:His Wiki's Voice
442:
441:
417:
365:
315:
220:
214:
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
82:Bit Riot Records
74:Bit Riot Records
65:
60:
34:
640:
639:
635:
634:
633:
631:
630:
629:
628:
622:deletion review
611:
544:
527:
519:
512:
498:
437:
436:
411:
218:
210:
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
63:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
638:
636:
627:
626:
606:
605:
584:
566:
565:
564:
553:
552:
541:
540:
539:
538:
507:
506:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
453:
452:
426:
425:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
306:
288:
287:
267:
247:
212:TransporterMan
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
637:
625:
623:
619:
614:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
595:duffbeerforme
592:
588:
585:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
567:
562:
559:
554:
550:
548:
543:
542:
536:
532:
530:
524:
522:
517:
515:
508:
504:
502:
497:
496:
488:
484:
480:
479:duffbeerforme
476:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
440:
433:
428:
427:
423:
415:
409:
404:
399:
396:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
310:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
215:
213:
207:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
612:
609:
586:
569:
558:NorthAmerica
545:
528:
520:
513:
499:
460:David Gerard
438:
420:
397:
363:TonyTheTiger
358:
357:I am voting
345:David Gerard
313:TonyTheTiger
308:
296:David Gerard
291:
211:
205:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
49:
47:
31:
28:
529:talk to me!
167:free images
59:‑Scottywong
380:WP:CHICAGO
330:WP:CHICAGO
64:| squeal _
618:talk page
384:WP:WAWARD
334:WP:WAWARD
276:• Gene93k
256:• Gene93k
236:• Gene93k
204:anything
37:talk page
620:or in a
547:Relisted
501:Relisted
475:WP:MUSIC
414:Chubbles
408:WP:MUSIC
126:View log
39:or in a
591:notable
574:Carrite
432:WP:BAND
403:WP:CORP
376:WP:FOUR
326:WP:FOUR
309:Comment
173:WP refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
587:Delete
145:Google
103:delete
54:WP:GNG
50:delete
514:Mdann
439:78.26
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
599:talk
578:talk
570:Keep
483:talk
464:talk
398:Keep
359:keep
349:talk
300:talk
280:talk
260:talk
240:talk
219:TALK
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
195:TWL
124:– (
601:)
580:)
521:52
485:)
466:)
448:)
382:/
378:/
374:/
370:/
351:)
332:/
328:/
324:/
320:/
302:)
282:)
274:.
262:)
254:.
242:)
234:.
222:)
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
56:.
597:(
576:(
481:(
462:(
444:(
416::
412:@
386:)
372:C
368:T
366:(
347:(
336:)
322:C
318:T
316:(
298:(
278:(
258:(
238:(
216:(
199:)
191:·
185:·
177:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:·
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.