The subject has been covered / mentioned by the following reputable sources [1][2][3]. It's relevant enough for All About Jazz to mention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicwang (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This rationale repeats arguments made at AfD, which failed. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps said rationale for such articles needs to be reconsidered. It would seem to me that the article for the Billboard Awards, too, would have to be deleted if you apply the same logic of third party sources being a must; most of the references on the Billboard Awards wiki page come directly from the Billboard website, invalidating their point of support, which means that the relevance it's granted here is based on something other than the fact that it has paper sources. The Independent Music Awards are open submission according to the website, so, actually looking at the lists of nominees and winners you would see that the Awards are at least relevant enough for people like Macy Gray (2016 winner), George Benson (2014) and Meghan Trainor (2012) to enter their work into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicwang (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was good, and as Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out, other stuff not being perfect is not a reason to recreate this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I don't see that the new coverage is sufficient to write a new encyclopedia article about these awards, either. Huon (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No issues with the AFD, and I'm not at all convinced that being "mentioned by All About Jazz" is very impressive. Their site makes clear that anyone with a press release and 10 bucks can get it republished there. So it's no more an achievement than taking out a classified ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
unfairly deleted. there is a category called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_films_by_home_video_label and my article was a contribution to this category. i was unfairly targeted by admins who did not even bother to see that this category exists. my article was very similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arrow_Films_releases in which my article provided a full and updating list of 88 films releases. my article was personally appreciated by 88 films themselves who tweeted their appreciation to me. as well as many other film collectors such as myself. it is just a list. i had no images. all my references got deleted first and then it was the 88 films wiki page and finally my list article. Kn5150 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a list belonging to the also removed article 88 Films. But 88 Films is nothing more than an re-issuing label and not a production house. Beside that, the list was (at least at the time that I nominated it for deletion) completely unsourced. With the parent company not notable, how can this list be notable? The Bannertalk 16:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous versions of the list were, as Kn5150 says, referenced... sort of... with 70 links to pages substantially identical to either this or this. I don't think their removal was at all unjustified. —Cryptic 16:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles need reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. A shop is not a reliable source, nor is a link of 88 Films by any means independent. The Bannertalk 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Rationale does not adress unanimous Delete arguments on XfD. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see nothing wrong with the deletion discussion or the closure. Hobit (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse. An accusation such as claiming you were "unfairly targeted" is a very serious matter, and an accusation of that sort should not be publicly made without some extremely strong evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell this was a totally routine deletion (the AFD was even relisted twice to solidify consensus and ran nearly a month, so nobody can say it was rushed or done sub rosa). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
