Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Records (Christian)

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. Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Records (Christian)[edit]

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

Non-Notable company. Codf1977 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. Why is this record label notable? They are a division of Sony Music Entertainment, the second largest record label in the world. All of their current acts are notable and have articles. This is not some small independent label. One of their current acts is Third Day who has been on the label since 1999. During that time they have had 11 albums on the Billboard 200, won 22 Dove Awards (an award for Christian musicians) 4 Grammies (which include mainstream). That's just one of their artists. I could keep going; let me know if I need to say more to prove my point. Royal broil 23:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you can, it would help if you could show the "Significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as detailed in the General Notability Guidelines and that it meets WP:ORG as I was unable to find any. Codf1977 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my argument: Why not compare against WP:MUSIC? This is a musical topic, and in my opinion record labels should be compared to the spirit of the music guideline even if it isn't specifically spelled out there (see WP:CREEP). Every act associated with this label is very notable, so why wouldn't the label itself be notable? Point #5 under WP:MUSIC says "Has released two or more albums on a major label". This is a subsidiary of major label, not an independent label! At least one current artist has met almost all 12 points in the artists section under WP:MUSIC. I added additional independent reliable sources to make it stronger against the general notability guideline. Royal broil 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There certainly are a lot of mentions in Billboard, and in books about the Christian music scene.[1] First Light (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of thoes is significant coverage of the company as opposed to "Band X signed to" or "Sony Y by band Z released by" ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very prominent label, and probably the most successful in its genre (CCM). Many of the artists on the roster are major ones that have received multiple awards, such as Grammys. I'm afraid this nomination is well-meaning but misguided. Jamie S93^❤ 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is misguided - None of the editors proposing Keep have been able to provide any links showing that this company meets either the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2010 (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.