Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33 Jazz Records


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

33 Jazz Records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish its notability Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * * WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: This label has a presence in the British Jazz ecosystem, being responsible for a wide range of albums which can be seen being reviewed in The Guardian for example. However it is a common problem for articles on rcord labels, galleries, book publishers that notability is not inherited. I haven't located substantial coverage of the label itself, in the absence of which this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. The lead sentence gives a notable figure: Anita Wardell won a BBC Jazz award. That makes her notable and I would think by extension this makes the label notable. You could apply a similar standard to other musicians on the label. If they have made a substantial contribution, then they are notable and the label is notable. There are other labels on Wikipedia that I would delete before 33 Jazz. I also agree with the point made about the label's importance in England, something perhaps lost to those of us in America who are less familiar with English music, English jazz musicians, and English record labels. There isn't a lot of press about record labels, so that's not the best standard to use. –Vmavanti (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited though. There needs to a basic level of coverage in reliable sources about the label itself for it to be notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be illogical to think that a musician's success is disconnected from the label's success and vice versa. The two are intertwined. –Vmavanti (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not inherited, but this record label isn't notable because of a single artist, that's why "vanity labels" are often merged into an artist's page.  In this case, the label is notable because of the number of notable artists signed and released, per NMUSIC #5.  The number of significant albums by notable artists, and the widespread geographic distribution (multiple countries) indicates that this label has become culturally important.  The article contains useful information to musicologists and discographers (who because of the artists, length of history, and widespread distrubution are likely to seek further information on the topic), the information contained is WP:V, and Wikipedia is thereby not improved by its deletion.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: appears to meet WP:NMG. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: This appears to meet the criteria for a notable record label, as it has signed many notable artists. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.