Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/679 Artists

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. I am not seeing a consensus in this discussion. There have been two relistings and, since the last comment was over 10 days ago, my view is that a further relist is unlikely to promote a better consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

679 Artists[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced with the only source I was able to find was the archived version of thier website and http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ which is mostly a copy of the website with an additional sentence about the end of the label. These two self published sources are not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines.

A merger has been suggested to warner music group, but that would be inappropriate since there are over a hundred such labels and including them in the article would be infeasible. Just including one of the non-notable labels would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 679 meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label - it was in operation for more than a decade as a Warner subsidiary (I see a release as recent as 2018) and released music from a whole passel of noteworthy artists, among them The Streets, The Futureheads, The Secret Handshake, King Creosote, Death from Above 1979, MSTRKRFT, Little Boots, Plan B, and The Stills. Many of these albums were charting in the UK or the US, in some cases top-ten. The argument against merging falls flat; leaving this as a redlink is certainly not preferable to having it provide some sort of information about the connections between the groups that would link to it. Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find what WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label was with no heading for labels. Therefore I looked at the criteria for the "Others" section of WP:MUSIC and to the criteria at WP:ORG. For both these I could not see that it met these criteria due to not finding any significant coverage in any independent, reliable secondary sources. This could of course be due incompatence on my part, but as notability is not inherited having a notable artists in the label is not sufficient for notability.

I am also curious about the 2018 release as according to http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ the label closed in 2013. Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MUSIC's language refers to indie labels, but I don't see a good reason not to apply it to major-subsidiaries, if we are choosing between keeping and merging. I'm not in principle opposed to a merge so long as the basic functionality of the page - an easy way to tell who was signed to the label - is retained; perhaps to a larger Warner discography page, but frankly, leaving it as a separate article (perhaps at "list of artists signed to 679 Artists"?) just seems like so much more user-friendly a solution. Plan B's most recent album (2018) was released on the label according to Billboard ([1]). Chubbles (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of compelling arguments to say that "labels" should not fall under WP:NCORP guidelines but should instead fall under WP:MUSIC guidelines. As it stands, WP:MUSIC does not provide guidelines for labels (but perhaps it should?). Therefore using the WP:NCORP guidelines, this company fails the criteria as there are no references that meet the guidelines for establishing notability and my !vote would be to delete. Has this discussion taken place under WP:MUSIC in the past? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_37#No_criteria_for_labels and then subsequently at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_21#Proposed_criteria_for_record_labels. I was the instigator in these conversations, though I did not see the attempt through fully. The chief sticking point seemed to be the number of artists that would substantiate importance - some editors wanted a minimal threshold, whereas I thought a more holistic judgment was warranted, and I didn't end up pursuing the matter beyond this. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 9 July 2019 (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.