Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance Records

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. Although RLCampbell made the first comment on this page, the actual nomination was made by Abc518, who placed the tag on the article and added it to the AfD log. With his switch to keep, and with RLCampbell's apparent keep, the nominator no longer favors deletion, and no other editor favors deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Records

[edit]
Chance Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What's going on here? Chance is the company that recorded such acts as The Flamingos, The Moonglows, The Five Echoes, J. B. Hutto, Homesick James Williamson, Schoolboy Porter, and John Sellers. It also released three singles by John Lee Hooker. I see skeletal articles on Wikipedia for independent record companies like United Records (one of Chance's competitors), States Records, and so on.

I have no idea why this demand for speedy deletion was made, but if it is pressed I will make a formal complaint about it.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched from Speedy to AfD

(Copied from the article's talk page)

The history page for this article shows that you jumped in with your demand to delete it 2 minutes after I started the article. Moreover, the label you slapped on the article demanded an immediate response here on this talk page. I and others can provide plenty of published sources that cover aspects of Chance Records. It appears, however, that you would prefer to delete the article before anyone has an opportunity to do so. Please take this article off AfD. If after one week, you are not satisfied with it, then make any complaint you wish.-RLCampbell (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a week within the AFD to fix it up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather, but the AfD was rapidly substituted for a Speedy Deletion after I complained about the demand for the former. I took a look at WP:GD, Section 4.1, and I have trouble believing that Abc518 is heeding any of the guidelines contained therein.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the article in its current form with the established article for Vee-Jay, I think you'll see that a merger would be inadvisable. If Aristocrat Records gets a distinct article from Chess Records, even though Chess was a successor to Aristocrat, Chance should be differentiated from Vee-Jay, which was not its successor company. Chess controlled all of the Aristocrat masters, whereas Vee-Jay did not inherit the Chance masters (it licensed a handful of them).-RLCampbell (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The label was in business for four years and recorded a number of notable artists. Clearly a notable label, just a new article that needs sources. ReverendWayne (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From Google Book search I found and added six reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. In particular, see the chapter about the label [1] in a book on "Doowop" music. Chance is notable as an early 1950's independent record company which launched The Flamingos and recorded several other notable artists. The article still needs work to provide inline sites from the refs I added or others. A Google Book search would have quickly shown evidence of notability, but at the time it was nominated for speedy deletion, there was no claim at all of notability. Some of the individual records from Chance now sell for $2500 per Rollingstone. Edison (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's best, then, to practice defensive editing. I have now put a bunch of in-line citations in the article. Obviously, there is more that could be done, but I am going to await the outcome of this AfD case before committing any further effort to it.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the original editor has more than asserted notability - apart from anything else, the article now has 14 distinct inline citations. One way of showing good faith when starting a new article is to put up an {{underconstruction}} tag. That in itself doesn't guarantee its survival, but it does seem to appeal to the goodwill of 'em trigger-happy editors out there. --Technopat (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The article looks a lot better now. When I nominated this, it was smaller than most of the points page in this page, and had no reference to notability. --Abc518 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chance_Records&oldid=1070187428"