Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noyes 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 No consensus. Default to keep. Recent improvements have presented greater evidence of notability, but not conclusively, as noted by Irridescent and Erik Paul. It would be good if further citations could be added over the next couple of months to avoid the need for another AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noyes Records[edit]
- Noyes Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company. Was deleted before as an uncontested prod. Was created and prodded today and creator removed prod. -WarthogDemon 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of this inclusion has increased since the last deletion. The "uncontested prod" was only so because notifications were disabled (a newbie mistake). The article cites external sources showing that it exists outside of the creator's mind, which is a significant factor in inclusion in Wikipedia. - Megadan76 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CORP states that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Which the subject in question has. Further more I believe that deleting the article simple causes this cycle to repeat. If the article is deleted, it has to be rewritten each time, instead of the article being improved. - Megadan76 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should userfy the article as I think we are going to need to see more content and more than just one single reference to eatablish notability. I suggest userfying the article and allowing the author to improve it there, at which point once he/she feels it is improved he/she can submit it to deletion review. LakeBoater (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional content is now being added by multiple editors, userfying may be inappropriate now.
- Megadan76 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "links to no other articles" tag should rightfully be removed as the article has multiple links to other wikipedia articles. -Megadan76 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. None of the references seem to actually be about the label itself, as opposed to the artists on it. The award doesn't seem quite important enough to serve as evidence of notability, as Halifax has so few labels that "best record label" doesn't have the significance it would have in Montreal or Toronto. Willing to be persuaded, though. I can't see any point at all in userifying it unless there's a siginficant expansion on the way. – iridescent 01:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. HiDrNick! 01:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the references seem to actually be about the label itself" From the first source, about the label itself: "What started out as a small town idea, has grown into a success with international recognition. Noyes Records (www.noyesrecords.com ) has sold c-d’s in places as far reaching as Germany and has had reviews in prominent magazines from the United States. Chad recently signed a deal to have records distributed to record stores all over Canada, and they are constantly referred to as one of the prominent up and coming record labels on the East coast"
I see no harm in keeping the article (before it was deleted, the wikipedia article was cited in at least one review of the label/bands involved).
Furthermore given the increasing status of the label it's likely that bands featured on the label will begin recieving wiki entries of their own, necessitating the revival of this article. Expansion of the article will progress as expansion of the label does, it doesn't happen overnight.
Multiple sources from established publications certainly provides evidence of notability.
The article is all ready more extensive than many other label articles. c.f. Rock_Action_Records, Artists_Against_Success, Just_Music, etc. The inclusion of these articles and not this one is questionable. Thank you for all your attention to the improvement of this article. - Megadan76 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More links showing notable artists added and the article has been streamlined. There is now no reason to include the 'deadend' tag, it should be removed. - Megadan76 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just added four new references (two from CBC Radio 3's web site and a pair of Canadian publications). Notability can be confirmed - let's not be too eager to delete this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly not going to argue (I was only a weak delete above) but it seems those are again sources about the bands, not the label, and I don't think notability's inherited backwards from the band to the label (plenty of notable bands have had releases on non-notable labels). This is not to say the label is necessarily non-notable, just that I don't think there's necessarily enough to demonstrate it. – iridescent 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Comment Ah, but the point remains that the label is cited as the source of the music. The bands are not self-releasing, and Noyes Records is clearly identified. In the indie music world, bands and labels often share a mutual state of recognition. That is why I cited these sources. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly not going to argue (I was only a weak delete above) but it seems those are again sources about the bands, not the label, and I don't think notability's inherited backwards from the band to the label (plenty of notable bands have had releases on non-notable labels). This is not to say the label is necessarily non-notable, just that I don't think there's necessarily enough to demonstrate it. – iridescent 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – not because notability is inherited, but because the label has had non-trivial mentions in several media articles. (I would be arguing delete on the basis of "notability is not inherited" if the media mentions were always about a single band.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:30, 12 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.