Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line Out 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 delete. The article does not demonstrate notability per WP:N nor WP:CORP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line Out Records[edit]

Seemingly non-notable record label. Prod removed by anon without significant comment or alteration. tomasz. 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged "without significant comment or alteration" changes between prod and un-prod may be seen by the diff here. Listing the labels releases and fuller listing of their artists would indeed appear a significant expansion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're the current publishers for a number of bands significant in the UK Industrial scene Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently active label with busy release schedule. One the key players in the current UK industrial/futurepunk scene. Erstwerst (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The undiscussed COI tag placed on this article in the midst of an AfD debate can only be judged to refer to the creator of this article 3 years ago, in relation to content that has no obvious NPOV issue. Remember - COI isn't a ban on contributions, just advice to be cautious with them (let alone the practices of 3 years ago). For the proposer of the AfD to do this during an AfD itself is not an action in good faith and can only be judged to be an attempt to prejudice the AfD. If there's an actual NPOV issue, then talk about it openly - don't just sneak around throwing mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think it is necessary to discuss every tag you put on an article. i added the tag in reaction to the fact that the creating editor has the same name as the articlespace: the tag notifies people of this fact. Its usage is not limited to where a definitive NPOV issue is identified or even suspected. The time frame is therefore not strictly relevant. i don't see how the addition of the tag could be prejudicial to the debate, except as "advice to be cautious". Although thanks for your continual assumptions of bad faith. tomasz. 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to assume good faith as a starting condition and I always strive to do so. However I am not required to continue believing so, in the face of actions contrary to it.

Tagging this article as COI when the AfD is based on notability, not NPOV or COI issues, is an irrelevance. Creating a flimsy justification for doing so based on one 3 year old edit is prejudice. Doing so in the middle of an AfD stretches AGF to the limits of credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how COI might relate to notability, i can't be bothered continuing this discussion. You may believe what you wish. tomasz. 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to add the COI tag given that the article has been completely altered since the one and only edit made by a COI-related editor. Specifically, the two paragraphs that were written by that COI-related editor is no longer to be found in the article. In other words, the edits made by the COI-related editor have already been cleaned up prior to this AFD. I have removed the COI tag accordingly. --Bardin (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sources as per WP:CORP. Does not appear to have many notable bands. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sea of red that doesn't indicate that the label meets the qualifications of WP:CORP. Lack of coverage by independent, reliable sources focusing on the label (and not the acts) hurts the case here. Citations of articles in reliable sources demonstrating the significance and influence of the label in the UK music scene would certainly help here. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2008 (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.