Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/78 Records (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

78 Records

 * previous AFD Articles for deletion/78 Records

Advertisement. Concerns on notability, sourcing, and spam that were raised in the first AfD were never addressed. RJASE1 Talk  16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has a reference to "Groove Magazine" which is online accessible and appears to have a reference to a newspaper article which does not have a convenience link. Content issues can be addressed via editing. Edison 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about the topic to make an informed suggestion. If kept, however, I'd recommend moving to 78 Records (store) and changing this to a redirect to gramophone record, or if deleted, just changing this to the indicated redirect, as this term is a reasonable search term for those seeking information about 78 rpm records. 23skidoo 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion and that can be done anytime. Suggest waiting till this discussion closes though. &mdash;Moondyne 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It isn't immediately obvious that this is the article's second nomination for deletion and the fact is easy to overlook. That fact should be more prominent here.  That said, I will vote delete per nom.  The article reads like promotional material and makes a number of claims regarding importance and notability that are not sourced.  The mention in "Groove Magazine" is the best that this article can muster, and as to whether that is a sufficient source to establish notability, of that I am highly dubious.  If additional sourcing can be added to the article, AND it is massively cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia entry and less like promotional materials I may be persuaded to support a keep. Arkyan 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notiability was previously established during last AfD, all issues raised were addressed then, Also AfD notified at WP Australia, and WP:Western Australia. Gnangarra 05:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The article is virtually unchanged from when it was AfD'd four months ago. The result of that AfD was a strong and clear consensus to keep. "Keep" means "keep", not "you have four months to improve the article or it will be deleted". Hesperian 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (or else Strong keep if that's not possible) per Hesperian. Redoing AfDs because nothing is done about something or because you didn't like the outcome of the first one is not on. JROBBO 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with strong support for the sense of above keep - with concern that the second nomination is not actually kosher - per Gnangarra and Hesperians comments. Notability is definite - and the fact that the average editor has little understanding of where third party sources are sure to exist offline does not a delete make SatuSuro 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to suggestion by 23Skidoo. Comment, the 2nd nomination is by RJASE1. The first was by some newbie bozo. Sluggish weak support - Fred 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Fully support comments of Hesperian, Gnangarram and SatuSoro comments as above. The notability of the article's subject has already been well established and it forms an important part of the development of the WA music scene through those early years. If you are concerned about notability or other matters, use the propper method of tagging the article first and discussing your issues in talk before jumping the gun and moving to AfD. As for 23skidoo's comments, it might be appropriate for a disambiguation note to be placed at the top of the article as per his comments. thewinchester 08:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly verifiable and notable from Western Australian sources, 30 hits on Factiva (which indexes newspaper articles by the West Australian and Australian) going back as far as that engine will allow. - it's a notable record store which has also served as a small venue for a range of artists. Article does need improvement on style and content, but AfD is not the vehicle to make that happen. Orderinchaos78 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Orderinchaos78 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and iconic record store and integral part of the Perth music scene. I am concerned that we're having this debate as it sets a bad precedent following the earlier Afd whcih closed as Keep.  &mdash;Moondyne 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup, clearly notable, but sounds a lot like a press release or an ad. Lankiveil 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep SMBarnZy 12:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. DanielT5 15:45, 5 March 2007 (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.