Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeSoto Records

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeSoto Records[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Available sources are largely unacceptable such as discogs which can not be used as sources per WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator appears not to have considered any WP:ATD before this nomination; this label is run by two members of Jawbox and is distributed by Fontana Records, which means at most that a merge would be appropriate. A redlink here flatly does not serve readers interested in this topic, and DeSoto put out some of the more important indie rock releases of the 1990s. The label's dissolution (in 2002, mind you; how much coverage are we going to expect to find on Google?) was significant enough to attract notice from CMJ New Music Report ([1]) and Billboard ([2]), which certainly indicates to me that the label fully deserves its own article. Chubbles (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMJ is a trade magazine ( https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8545536/cmj-return-2020-new-management). Note what WP:ORGIND says about using trade magazines for the purpose of claiming notability. The argument you present does not establish how it meets WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added 9 new citations to this article, including the ones Chubbles provided. Billboard is still their most notable, but with a combination of others like this, they are good enough to be notable. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at how much of the billboard coverage is based on direct quotes. There's little intellectual independent coverage on DeSoto by the journalist. This is what one would call a dependent secondary. The target to be met is NCORP, which has one of the highest bar. Not NMUSIC or NBAND Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus to keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They clearly exist in their niche market, and WP:NMUSIC admits the use of discography. This is a strong discography, and meets WP:NMUSIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2021 (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.