Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plutonrecords

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Tone 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonrecords

[edit]
Plutonrecords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly, despite its claim, I could not find any reliable sources on this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content (reliable), bad grammar and it's a traduction from the es.Wikipedia article Plutonrecords. TbhotchTalk C. 04:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can find historical reference of plutonrecords in "Diccionario del Rock Latino". You can find more info searching about bands on plutonrecords. Without going any further BLANCO (Plutonrecords-Vaso Music-FTS Records) was selected as one of the best albums of the decade by the La Dosis magazine and the radio program act of faith. Please investigate before you write negative comments about something on wikipedia. Contribute correct grammar maul instead of important information for the general culture. Thanks! SM 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs)

    • First of all, chill out. Second of all, no one here has made negative comments. I checked out the eMusic link you posted, and that doesn't necessarily point to notability because songs that aren't even on albums can make it onto file-sharing programs like that. (Other Wikipedia articles don't really qualify as reliable sources either.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ONE MORE TIME - PLEASE DO NOT Delete eMusic is not a to share music site, in eMusic you can buy only music edited by records labels, mayor and independent.

You should investigate better before disapprove something. Plutonrecords was a Independent label that work hard, was vanguardist and deserves respect.

The most important band of this record label was CULTO OCULTO that edited three albums with plutonrecords. Here you got some links about it, first one was the presentation of BLANCO album in most important TV in Spain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUxZm8NduEs

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/cultooculto

http://origin.www.mtvla.com/bands/az/cultooculto/bio.jhtml

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/blanco/id210435127

You should be have a personal problem with it, because I don't find any other reason for your negative pressure about it.

Please build, not destroy. SM 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs)

  • I have not been able to locate any reliable sources for this content, so I recommend it should be deleted.

    Incidentally, Seanmillerblack, do you have anything to declare?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added additional citations from newspapers from that time. You have to understand that at the that moment Plutonrecords was created (1996) on www.plutonrecords.com (Domine Owned by other people from 2005) Wikipedia had not be created, the internet was young. The most information about it was in newspapers and magazines and Plutonrecords was a very vanguardist proyect at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better referencing is found to indicate notability. The references to Wikipedia pages do not count as they are editable. The Dictionary of Latin Rock ref goes to a page selling the book. I can't find Pluton on FTS - just the band Culto oculto. They are obviously notable, but this is not transferable. The remaining three are uncertain as they are just names. The quote from El Universal does indicate a certain claim to notability, but this needs supporting. I appreciate that back then there were far fewer sources online that will still be there, but notability does tend not to fade. Please don't get wound-up. Ranting and telling us how it should be done only harm your case. We want to build - but like the Hebrews in Egypt we need some straw to help us make the bricks. If you can't find the stuff required in time, there's no reason why the article cannot be added again later - when the needed references are found. Not before, please. Better English would be nice, but we can always sort that out. Please note also that the existence of another article is no guarantee of a particular article's survival. Especially, the different language Wikipedias do have different standards. There is often co-operation between editors in different languages (as in one case I've recently been involved with), but what goes in one may not go in another. Keep calm and listen to us. We might actually be trying to help you.... Peridon (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a record label with no notable artists cannot possibly be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 17 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plutonrecords&oldid=1142610652"