Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greentrax Recordings

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. Sort of a weak keep, but a keep nonetheless. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greentrax Recordings

lacks references, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Fails WP:CORP RadioFan (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Didn't find any articles in GNews solely about Greentrax recordings, but there are oodles and oodles of articles mentioning the record label in one way or the other. Add to that the fact that two notable artists are signed up to the label (or at least not challenged for notability yet), I think there's enough for this label to qualify. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CORP tells us the same thing as WP:N, notability is demonstrated by "significant coverage in secondary sources", which I'm not finding. Even if there were hundreds of notable acts on the label, notability doesn't transfer. There is no provision in WP:CORP for record labels with notable artists. If this company were notable, someone, somewhere would have written something about.--RadioFan (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are cases where, in effect, notability does transfer. The most obvious example is where an writer is considered a major author, all books written by the author are considered notable. A chart single makes the artist notable even though the claim to notability is primarily on the single itself. Actors are usually considered notable through association with notable programmes, films or plays. Obviously there are some claims of notability by association which shouldn't be accepted, but the fact that a) it's association to two notable acts instead of one, b) being the record label of a notable act is a much better claim than most claims of association, and c) there is quite a lot of mentions in third party sources (most non-notable organisations can't get more than a few trivial mentions), I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please make a good faith attempt to confirm that sources aren't likely to exist, WP:BEFORE, 30 seconds on google found this archived writeup on the label and founder http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26388056_ITM appears to be from a scottish paper The Sunday Herald riffic (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I found that as well. While it's about the founder, not the company, since this company is likely the founders primary claim to fame, its likely a reasonable one to use to show notability. But 1 article still isn't significant coverage. I'm seeing a lot of hits on the name but since the company name is mentioned in press releases and reviews of artists, it can be difficult to find coverage of the company itself. Did you find anything else that is specifically about the company (that isn't a press release, there are a number of those showing up but they done help here)?--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 30 May 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.