Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity label

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity label[edit]

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

The opening of the article invites comparison with the term Vanity press, but the use thereof is quite different. New writers pay for their work to be published by such firms because they have failed to be published by reputable companies who carry the costs of doing so themselves in the expectation of a financial return, and pay the author. The record companies listed were founded mostly by very successful musicians whose commercial worth was by then well established. The article currently has just two citations, and a request for additional references was added nearly six years ago. One of the citations is now a broken link, while the other scarcely lists any of the examples given. While this article is not a complete fabrication, a check of the first 50 or so Google results uncovered articles from the New York Times and the tabloid (non-RS) New York Daily News which use the term, its notability looks questionable. Philip Cross (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The associated category came up for discussion six years ago. The result then was Keep under that name, but the rather better 'Category:Artist-run labels' was rejected. Clearly if the article was renamed to a similar form, and the introduction rewritten, the validity of the piece being on Wikipedia could be easily established. This looks like I am changing my mind in making 'Vanity label' an AfD, but the article under the present name does not have credibility for reasons outlined earlier. Philip Cross (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: The vanity label concept is notable. May have to dig more for best sourcing since the term is used so often in passing, but they are out there.[1][2][3]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (or should that be improve and keep?): important concept in phonograph record collecting. Starting with the Tetrazinni label produced by Zonophone, and then the Melba and Patti labels by Victor, and then the Paul Whiteman and Ted Lewis labels made by Columbia, the self-produced Miltone/Roy Milton label, and on and on, this has a long, notable history. I can (and will) help re-write the early history (including sources). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes a lot of material and is referenced as "vanity label" by the New York Times. Holdek (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2013 (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.