606:
I reiterate, as you do to the contrary, that I do not believe NCORP is the most appropriate standard for record labels, as NMUSIC #5 has been the lonstanding precedent. NMUSIC #5 is very clearly met in this case, but I also do not believe it the only notability standard that should be considered.
490:
Chicago
Tribune, Chicago Reader, and Washignton City Paper, Paste Magazine, Indy Week are not significant coverage. As for DCist, Multiple coverage by the same journalist/publication is considered one source, and this source is not independent since much of the contents is based on interview with
588:. The coverage needs to be significant, intellectually independent, reliable and secondary (does not include "dependent" secondary); and there must be multiple such sources to satisfy the absolute minimum requirements of NCORP. It's possible that Punk news could be too narrow of a focus for
195:
519:
671:. However, that's an interview with the label's producer and we generally consider interviews as not counting towards notability. The other possible source (not currently cited in the article) is the 1998
678:
and it turns out to also be an interview. All the other sources that I could see provide coverage that is either too brief or too indirect or both. I don't think there is a plausible case for passing
697:
principle. In particular, I really can't see how NMUSIC #5 (a criterion which talks about a band's records being released by a major label) could possibly apply to a record label itself.
189:
156:
262:
664:. However, in this case, the sources given in the article are too weak to support the kind of significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in detail that
445:
Please note, the article no longer heavily lacks sources. Another editor, who has not weighed in at this AfD, has added a large number of new sources to the article.
296:
363:. I do not know any of these bands, but if any have significant accomplishments, then perhpahs this label should be kept. The way it is, it doesn't appear so.
279:
103:
88:
321:
403:, this (genuinely influential) label's distributor. There is encyclopedic value in being able to interlink, and thereby show a relationship, between
495:, there must be significantly, intellectually independent, secondary coverage in multiple sources and thus far, this article fails this criteria.
129:
124:
133:
689:
as establishing any sort of consensus on the matter). But until and unless there is a more clear determination of whether and how
116:
83:
76:
17:
210:
553:
177:
625:
569:
539:
97:
93:
693:
may be applicable to music labels, e.g. via an RfC, I think we have to assume that it doesn't, particularly based on
653:
723:
608:
242:
40:
171:
415:, and the myriad other bands associated with each other by the fact of having all been signed to this label.
329:
706:
660:
should simply now not be used, ever, and we have to evaluate notability of organizations directly based on
630:
601:
574:
544:
504:
476:
454:
436:
424:
390:
372:
351:
333:
305:
288:
271:
254:
167:
58:
694:
467:, as the article now demonstrates independent notability such that merging is no longer a better option.
120:
719:
408:
368:
301:
284:
267:
36:
399:
It's not clear to me why deletion (i.e., redlinking) would be preferable to merging into the page for
217:
686:
argument, I am somewhat sympathetic to it (and I don't view the talk-page discussion reference above
112:
64:
649:
597:
500:
492:
404:
250:
230:
203:
472:
450:
420:
386:
347:
325:
245:
and there seems to be no overruling sustained consensus that it should be evalutated otherwise.
676:
669:
317:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
718:
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
690:
683:
400:
364:
234:
226:
183:
53:
702:
621:
565:
555:
indicates the label is long-established as important to the
Washington D.C. music scene.
535:
433:
238:
593:
585:
496:
432:
the article is about a non notable independent label, plus it heavily lacks sources. --
246:
241:, but rather NCORP, so appears according to a most recent discussion on this matter at
679:
665:
661:
657:
645:
589:
468:
446:
416:
382:
343:
611:
was very poorly attended and did not include editors familiar with the topic area.
584:
ok, although I'm not seeing what amounts to significant coverage in the context of
150:
412:
342:
Please note that a new editor has added these and other sources to the article.
687:
698:
612:
556:
526:
463:
Given the recent activity shoring up this article, I am changing my !vote to
381:
Please note that several of the bands have significant accomplishments.
243:
WT:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies
592:
satisfaction and it could be an industry magazine? (see ORGIND).
714:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
675:
piece mentioned by 78.26 above. I found this source online
146:
142:
138:
668:
requires. The only possible exception is the DCist ref
202:
656:
has overrun common sense. As far as I am concerned,
324:, but they do not amount to significant coverage.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
726:). No further edits should be made to this page.
295:Note: This discussion has been included in the
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
261:Note: This discussion has been included in the
237:. Recording labels/companies do not fall under
263:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
297:list of Virginia-related deletion discussions
216:
8:
104:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
525:, pages 58-61, no. 23, March-April 1998.
294:
280:list of Music-related deletion discussions
277:
260:
521:, the label was featured in magazine
7:
652:are the perfect examples of where
24:
229:masqueraded as an article. Fails
89:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
644:. Personally, I believe that
491:Lovitt. In order to satisfy
79:(AfD)? Read these primers!
743:
631:19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
602:19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
575:15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
545:15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
505:23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
477:14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
455:14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
437:11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
425:13:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
391:14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
373:21:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
352:14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
334:19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
306:13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
289:12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
272:12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
255:12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
55:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
716:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
707:14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
59:18:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
409:Division of Laura Lee
77:Articles for deletion
682:here. Regarding the
654:WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP
609:mentioned disussion
405:The Mercury Program
648:and specifically
308:
291:
274:
94:Guide to deletion
84:How to contribute
734:
617:
561:
531:
401:Dischord Records
304:
287:
270:
221:
220:
206:
154:
136:
74:
56:
34:
742:
741:
737:
736:
735:
733:
732:
731:
730:
724:deletion review
695:WP:NOTINHERITED
629:
613:
573:
557:
550:Further comment
543:
527:
518:- according to
300:
283:
266:
163:
127:
111:
108:
71:
68:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
740:
738:
729:
728:
710:
709:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
619:
563:
547:
533:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
480:
479:
460:
459:
458:
457:
440:
439:
427:
396:
395:
394:
393:
376:
375:
357:
356:
355:
354:
337:
336:
310:
309:
292:
275:
224:
223:
160:
113:Lovitt Records
107:
106:
101:
91:
86:
69:
67:
65:Lovitt Records
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
739:
727:
725:
721:
717:
712:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
681:
677:
674:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:
632:
627:
623:
618:
616:
610:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
571:
567:
562:
560:
554:
551:
548:
546:
541:
537:
532:
530:
524:
520:
517:
514:
513:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
435:
431:
428:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
307:
303:
302:North America
298:
293:
290:
286:
285:North America
281:
276:
273:
269:
268:North America
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:advertisement
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:Find sources:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
78:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
715:
713:
672:
650:WP:CORPDEPTH
641:
614:
581:
558:
549:
528:
522:
515:
493:WP:CORPDEPTH
487:
464:
429:
360:
313:
231:WP:CORPDEPTH
225:
213:
207:
199:
192:
186:
180:
174:
164:
70:
49:
47:
31:
28:
673:Punk Planet
626:revolutions
570:revolutions
540:revolutions
523:Punk Planet
413:Engine Down
365:Lesliechin1
316:. There is
190:free images
720:talk page
691:WP:NMUSIC
684:WP:NMUSIC
594:Graywalls
497:Graywalls
247:Graywalls
235:WP:ORGIND
37:talk page
722:or in a
469:Chubbles
447:Chubbles
434:K. Peake
417:Chubbles
383:Chubbles
344:Chubbles
326:Mukedits
239:WP:NBAND
157:View log
98:glossary
39:or in a
622:spin me
586:WP:SIRS
582:comment
566:spin me
536:spin me
516:Comment
488:comment
196:WP refs
184:scholar
130:protect
125:history
75:New to
680:WP:GNG
666:WP:GNG
662:WP:GNG
658:WP:ORG
646:WP:ORG
642:Delete
590:WP:AUD
430:Delete
361:Delete
314:Delete
168:Google
134:delete
50:delete
699:Nsk92
615:78.26
607:The
559:78.26
529:78.26
211:JSTOR
172:books
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
703:talk
598:talk
501:talk
473:talk
465:Keep
451:talk
421:talk
387:talk
369:talk
348:talk
330:talk
322:this
320:and
318:this
251:talk
233:and
204:FENS
178:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
218:TWL
155:– (
705:)
624:/
600:)
568:/
552:-
538:/
503:)
475:)
453:)
423:)
411:,
407:,
389:)
371:)
350:)
332:)
299:.
282:.
265:.
253:)
198:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
52:.
701:(
628:)
620:(
596:(
572:)
564:(
542:)
534:(
499:(
471:(
449:(
419:(
385:(
367:(
346:(
328:(
249:(
222:)
214:·
208:·
200:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
170:(
162:(
159:)
153:)
115:(
100:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.