279:, 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 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. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick.
252:
is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much
274:
to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not
257:
do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic
131:
161:
248:. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping.
123:
299:
190:
130:
Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the
253:
more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost
17:
222:
90:
85:
94:
77:
226:
330:
218:
349:
36:
229:
276:
135:
348:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
326:
57:
334:
314:
288:
240:
208:
179:
150:
59:
325:. It is WP:ORG that applies to labels, not WP:MUSIC. In this case, there seems to be enough coverage.
284:
271:
310:
259:
81:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
249:
138:
to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.
236:
198:
169:
140:
280:
306:
73:
65:
111:
263:
232:
342:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
134:. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't
266:, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.
225:, with plenty of other sources to back up details, e.g.
118:
107:
103:
99:
132:
notability guidelines for companies and organizations
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
352:). No further edits should be made to this page.
162:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
300:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
294:
191:list of Music-related deletion discussions
185:
156:
298:: This debate has been included in the
189:: This debate has been included in the
160:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
217:. Significant coverage of the label
24:
1:
270:What is really needed is for
369:
345:Please do not modify it.
335:00:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
60:14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
315:13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
289:11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
241:08:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
209:03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
180:03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
151:03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
136:automatically transfer
327:Fences and windows
44:The result was
317:
303:
211:
207:
194:
182:
178:
165:
149:
360:
347:
304:
205:
204:
197:
195:
176:
175:
168:
166:
147:
146:
139:
121:
115:
97:
53:
34:
368:
367:
363:
362:
361:
359:
358:
357:
356:
350:deletion review
343:
277:WP:NOTINHERITED
202:Esradekan Gibb
200:
199:
173:Esradekan Gibb
171:
170:
144:Esradekan Gibb
142:
141:
117:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
366:
364:
355:
354:
338:
337:
319:
318:
268:
267:
243:
212:
183:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
365:
353:
351:
346:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
265:
261:
256:
251:
247:
244:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
206:
203:
192:
188:
184:
181:
177:
174:
163:
159:
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
145:
137:
133:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
344:
341:
322:
295:
269:
254:
245:
214:
201:
186:
172:
157:
143:
129:
74:Murderecords
66:Murderecords
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
260:Blue Note
281:Chubbles
275:violate
272:WP:MUSIC
124:View log
307:Bearcat
250:WP:CORP
91:protect
86:history
233:Michig
221:, and
119:delete
95:delete
255:never
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
331:talk
323:Keep
311:talk
296:Note
285:talk
246:Keep
237:talk
228:and
223:here
219:here
215:Keep
187:Note
158:Note
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
264:Sun
231:.--
48:. –
333:)
313:)
302:.
287:)
262:,
239:)
193:.
164:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
329:(
309:(
305:—
283:(
258:(
235:(
196:—
167:—
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.