Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapel Studios

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 - despite three relistings this article has not gained any support to be kept and I am persuaded by Dennis Brown's arguments that none of the sources are about the subject studio nor deal with it in any depth. TerriersFan (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Studios[edit]

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

Not notable. Only primary sources or passing mentions. Saying "was recorded at Chapel Studios" is not significant coverage. Spam. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. It's not spam, though. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference to a Sound on Sound interview with the producer of the Arctic Monkeys and The Editors there, where more is said about the studio. AllyD (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, but that is the problem I'm finding. I see mentions of the studio, but no articles that pass WP:SIGCOV, even being generous in the definition. Lots of albums or articles on albums will mention "was recorded at $x studios" but even a million mentions doesn't establish notability if the article isn't actually ABOUT the studio itself. Realistically, the vast majority of studios are NOT going to be notable, just as the vast majority of restaurants aren't going to be. They are just businesses. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:10, 3 March 2012 (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.