Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellside Records (2nd nomination)

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. I'm going to close this as keep given 78.26's arguments, including the comment on notable artists on the label; one may find support for a claim of notability for such a label at WP:BAND, item 5. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fellside Records[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Last AfD in 2007 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete if it doesn't get proper sources very soon - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable label. Greatly influential in the English folk genre. 40 years of history. Numerous notable artists. Numerous notable releases. I'll look for more sources, but check how often the label is mentioned at the BBC. It is a crying shame a label this significant has existed here for so long without any sources whatsoever, (and not that I'm familiar with it, typical myopic American and all that I am) but this is not a reason for deletion. If this isn't a notable label, I don't know what is except perhaps the major labels. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised at the lack of actual sources. Would there be any on paper? - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure. I don't think this label seeks the type of attention so desperately sought by most of the internet labels that constantly are trying to gain exposure through Wikipedia. I'm going to check at my library, but I actually won't be able to access it until after this AfD has closed, unfortunately. I do wish I had access to British media trade magazines, I was surprised I couldn't find anything in Billboard. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As 78.26 said, it is notable enough. Rizhopper (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess it's going to be one of those cases where there have been plenty of records by notable artists released on the label (Jez Lowe, Peter Bellamy, A.L. Lloyd, Greg Russell and Ciaran Algar, etc. etc.), but that doesn't actually translate into any articles or sources about the label itself. I am not at all surprised there's nothing in Billboard – a US trade paper isn't going to spend much time looking at the British folk scene. Music Week *may* have an article on the label in one of their issues, but it will be a big job looking through 40 years of back issues (they are in the British Library at St. Pancras in London) to see if there's anything. The only major music magazine in the UK to take folk seriously was Melody Maker, where Colin Irwin edited a weekly column, but the magazine phased out their folk section in the early 80s (again, these are in the British Library). I think the best bet for sources will be books which are dedicated to a history of English folk music. Richard3120 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the article isn't improved by having that looooong list of every single record released on the label, though. Richard3120 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed. That comes off as very promotional. A simple numerical listing discography is fine listing catalog number, artist, and album title is useful, but if an album is important enough to contain all that information, there should be a separate article for that album. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 6 September 2016 (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.