Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (music industry)

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. John254 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion (music industry)[edit]

Useless, unsourced, original research

Delete - I'm not sure as to why this article is still here. It has been up since March 2007. Plenty enough time for the original creator to add proper information and expand. In my opinion it should be removed.--Ghostfacebandit (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not useless, it's hardly original research and a perfectly decent article can be written about this. The notion of 'deleted records' may seem arcane to the MP3/Bittorrent generation but like 'out of print' books it's a reasonable concept for Wikipedia. It's not just for the 'original creator' to improve articles, I searched for ten minutes and added four sources myself. Nick mallory (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely worth an article. Certainly not useless. Now well enough sourced.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung has improved this article no end. Well done. Nick mallory (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup, but I have nonetheless made changes to the article that should address the complaints. I had hoped that someone more knowledgeable than I would come along and improve it. Please note for the future that "usefulness" is not a deletion rationale, and original research is distinct from unreferenced material. This was easily verified if the nominator had bothered to take the time (that argument goes both ways, you know). --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:USELESS. Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks good, sourced and informative now.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative article with sources. No problems here. Lankiveil (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The article may not be perfect, but its informative, fairly well written and has several citations to reliable sources. The subject itself will be of interest to anybody curious about the music industry. I see no reason to delete.- Hal Raglan (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I don't see this page as useless at all, in fact it is very useful and just needs a bit of work. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:08, 29 December 2007 (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.