Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings

Delete Recording company that does not assert or prove its notability. A google search only seems to turn up a myspace page Dougofborg^(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't assert notability. Most of the blue links in the artist roster are false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 'Most' is a very strong statement. Many of them weren't wikilinked correctly (they now are) but we have articles on over half the bands listed. To me that's enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy so I removed it. Don't currently have an opinion on whether the article shoudl stay or not. Dpmuk (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a general problem with establishing the notability of independent record labels as the artists generally get much more press coverage than their labels. In some senses it would be nice to have a clear guideline for such things, as it would certainly benefit WP:MUSIC. The guideline there defines an important independent label as having "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Indie Recordings is apparently the brainchild of the people behind Tabu Recordings, and if so I'd argue that they certainly fulfill the criterion of having being around for "more than a few years". The roster clearly contains some highly notable bands, in the shape of Enslaved, Satyricon, Gehenna, God Seed, Keep of Kalessin and Borknagar; there are several others in there as well, which is beginning to look like a pretty heavyweight roster in heavy metal terms. They've apparently also recently signed Solefald (as reported here and Sahg (as reported here. I note they are also releasing the Sarke album; the band is not yet notable (the album isn't out yet), but given they contain Nocturno Culto of Darkthrone fame and are playing Wacken Open Air, there will certainly be significant coverage. I appreciate the last is a WP:CRYSTAL argument, but I'd be tempted to err towards Keep on the strength of the roster. Sources badly needed, obviously. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially because of the connections with God Seed, and that between Espen Rohne and members Gaahl and King ov Hell, which was pretty crucial during the Gorgoroth name dispute. Dark Prime (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources and rewritten things.Dark Prime (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Baz's arguments as well as Dark Prime's cleanup, which has helped the case for notability. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 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.