Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skunk 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skunk Records[edit]

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. A well-known label with a substantial roster and history, and there is some coverage around of Skunk Records and its Cornerstone RAS offshoot: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Could be merged to the Sublime (band) article, I suppose.--Michig (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least eight notable artists; notable producers. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 6 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.